On December 06, 2001 a Answer was filed involving a dispute between Jordan, Cheryl Lynn, Jordan, James, Thomas Dee Engineering Company, and 4520 Corp., Abblummus Global, Inc., A C And S,Inc., A.H. Voss Company, Albay Construction, Allis-Chalmers Corp. Product Liability Trust, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., American Standard, Inc., Asbestos Corp. Limited, Asbestos Corporation Ltd., Asbestos Defendants, Babcock Borsig Power Inc Ref To Db Riley Inc, Blue Diamond Corp., Borg Warner Inc., Borgwarner Inc. Fka Borg-Warner Automotive, Inc., Bragg Investment Company, Inc., Bridgestone Firestone Americas Holdings, Inc., Bridgestone Firestone,Inc., Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, Llc,, Bwd Automotive, Calaveras Cement Co., Certainteed Corporation, Chevron Products Company, Colonial Sugar Refining Company, Conocophillips Company, Consolidated Insulation, Inc., Crane Co., Crown Cork & Seal Company,Inc., Daimlerchrysler Corporation, Dana Corporation, D. Cummins Corporation, Diamond International Corp., Dillingham Construction N.A.,Inc., Dixon Boiler Works Inc, Dixon Boiler Works, Inc., Does 1-800, Dow Chemical Company, Dresser Industries Inc., D.W. Nicholson Corporation, Eaton Corporation, Elliott Company, Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc., Fisher Controls International, Llc, Flintkote Co., Flintkote Mines Ltd., Flowserve Us Inc, Flowserve Us Inc., Fluor Corporation, Fmc Corporation -Turbo Pump Operation, Ford Motor Company, Foster Wheeler Llc, Garlock Sealing Technologies, Ll, Gatke Corporation, General Electric Company, General Motors Corporation, General Refractories Company, Genstar Co., Genuine Parts Company, Goodrich Corporation, Grinnell Corporation, Halliburton Company, Hanson Cement, Inc., Henry Vogt Machine Co., Hercules Powder Company, Honeywell International, Inc. Fka Alliedsignal, Imo Industries Inc.,, Imo Industries, Inc., J.R.Simplot Company, J.R. Simplot Company, A Nevada Corporation,, J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Keenan Properties, Inc, Kubota Corporation, Lamons Gasket Company Dba Power Engineering &, Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp., Maremont Corporation, Metalclad Insulation Corporation, Monsanto Company, Morton International, Inc. A Rohm And Haas Company, Oakfabco, Inc., Oscar E. Erickson, Inc., Owens-Illinois, Inc., Pacific Coast Building Products, Inc Dba Pacific, Parker Hannifin Corporation, Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Parsons Energy & Chemical Group, Inc., Parsons Energy & Chemicals Group Inc, Plant Insulation Company, Pnuemo Abex Corporation, As Successor, Power Engineering & Equipment Co. Inc., Quigley Company, Inc., Rapid-American Corporation, Republic Supply Company, Rheem Manufacturing Co, Rheem Manufacturing Company, Robertson-Ceco Corporation, Rosendahl Corporation, Santa Fe Braun, Inc. As Successor-In-Interest To, Sequoia Ventures, Inc., Shell Oil Company, Soo Line Railroad Company, Standard Motor Products, Stuart Radiator Core Manufacturing Co Inc, Stuart Radiator Core Manufacturing Co. Inc., Stuart-Western, Inc., Sugar City Building Materials Inc., Taylor Plumbing Supply Company, Dba Globe Plumbing, Taylor Plumbing Supply Inc., Temporary Plant Cleaners, Inc., The Budd Company, Thomas Dee Engineering Company, Thorpe Insulation Company, Tosco Corporation, Tosco Refining Company, Trimon, Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, Unocal Corporation, Viacom Inc., Successor By Merger To Cbs Corporatio, Vogt Valve Company, Waldron, Duffy, Inc., Westburne Supply, Inc., Yale Industrial Products, Inc., Zurn Industries, Inc., for ASBESTOS in the District Court of San Francisco County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
ne Nn | SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jun-22-2009 9:56 am Case Number: CGC-01-402113 Filing Date: Sep-20-2002 10:08 Juke Box: 001 Image: 02532923 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT JAMES JORDAN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC) 001002532923 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. - € L GABRIEL A. JACKSON, ESQ. CsB# 981190 KAREN L. PRODROMO, ESQ., CsB #203702 t ‘ JACKSON & WALLACE tp 55 Francisco Street, 6th Floor LMAGED RT San Francisco, CA 94133 2 Y dud (415) 982-6300 SFP 25 2002 GOR-P Attorneys For Defendant REPUBLIC SUPPLY COMPANY woe IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 " JAMES JORDAN, No. 402113 12 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT REPUBLIC Plaintiffs), SUPPLY COMPANY TO UNVERIFIED B COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY Vv ~ ASBESTOS 4 ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC), 15 Defendants. 16 7 18 DEFENDANT REPUBLIC SUPPLY COMPANY (hereinafter "Defendant") 19 answers the unverified Complaint on its own behalf and on behalf of no other 20 defendant or entity as follows: 2t Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant 22 denies generally each and every allegation of the Complaint. 23 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 Neither the Complaint nor any purported cause of action alleged by the 25 plaintiff(s) therein states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against 26 Defendant. 27 EFENSE 28 Neither the Complaint nor any purported cause of action alleged by the DEFENDANT REPUBLIC SUPPLY’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY ee oo oe C e ~~ plaintiff(s) therein states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for strict liability against Defendant. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE To the extent the Complaint asserts Defendant's alleged "market share” liability, or “enterprise liability,” the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Neither the Complaint nor any purported cause of action alleged therein states facts sufficient to entitle plaintiff(s) to an award of punitive damages against 10 Defendant. I FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE n The imposition of any punitive damages in this matter would deprive 13 Defendant of its property without due process of law under the California 4 Constitution and United States Constitution. 15 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 The imposition of any punitive damages in this matter would violate the 17 United States Constitution's prohibition against laws impairing the obligation of 18 contracts, 19 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 The imposition of any punitive damages in this matter would constitute a criminal 21 fine or penalty and should, therefore, be remitted on the ground that the award 22 violates the United States Constitution. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 Plaintiff's action, and each alleged cause of action, is barred by the applicable 25 statute of limitations, including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure, 26 sections 338(1), 338(4), 339(1), 340(1), 340(3), 340.2, 343 and 353 and California 27 Commercial Code, section 2725. 28 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 DEFENDANT REPUBLIC SUPPLY’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY €~~ €‘ Plaintiff(s) unreasonably delayed in bringing this action, without good cause therefore, and thereby has prejudiced Defendant as a direct and proximate result of such delay; accordingly, his action is barred by laches and by section 583 et. seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff(s) was negligent in and about the matters alleged in the Complaint and in each alleged cause of action; this negligence proximately caused, in whole or in part, the damages alleged in the Complaint. In the event plaintiff() is entitled to any damages, the amount of these damages should be reduced by the comparative fault of 10 plaintiff(s) and any person whose negligent acts or omissions are imputed to W plaintiff(s). 12 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 Plaintiff) knowingly, voluntarily and unreasonably undertook to encounter 6 each of the risks and hazards, if any, referred to in the Complaint and each alleged 15 cause of action, and this undertaking proximately caused and contributed to any loss, 16 injury or damages incurred by plaintiff(s). 7 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 Any loss, injury or damage incurred by plaintiff(s) was proximately caused by 19 the negligent or willful acts or omissions of parties whom Defendant neither 20 controlled nor had the right to control, and was not proximately caused by any acts, 21 omissions or other conduct of Defendant. 22 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 used, 2Du: The products referred to in the Complaint were mi: Susec, abus ed or altered by 24 plaintiff(s) or by others; the misuse, abuse or alteration was not reasonably foreseeable 25 to Defendant, and proximately caused any loss, injury or damages incurred by 26 phintiff(). 27 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28 Defendant alleges that its products were manufactured, produced, supplied, 3 DEFENDANT REPUBLIC SUPPLY’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY _ 6 ~ €~ sold and distributed in mandatory conformity with specifications promulgated by the United States Government under its war powers, as set forth in the United States Constitution, and that any recovery by piaintiff(s) on the Complaint on file herein is barred in consequence of the exercise of those sovereign powers, FIFTEE! AFFIR, Si Plaintiff(s) failed to exercise due diligence to mitigate his loss, injury or damages; accordingly, the amount of damages to which plaintiff(s) is entitled, if any, should be reduced by the amount of damages which would have otherwise been mitigated, 10 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE W The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged in the 12 Complaint because the Complaint and each alleged cause of action against Defendant 13 are barred by the provisions of California Labor Code, section 3600, et seq. 14 SE ENTH {ATIVE DEFENSE 15 Defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, 16 plaintiff(s) was employed and was entitled to receive Workers’ Compensation benefits 17 from his employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier; that all of plaintiff's 18 employers, other than Defendant, were negligent in and about the matters referred to 19 in said Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of said employers proximately 20 and concurrently contributed to the happening of the accident and to the loss or 21 damage complained of by plaintiff(9), if any there were; and that by reason thereof 22 Defendant is entitled to set off and/or reduce any such workers’ compensation benefits reccive or to be received by plaintiff(s) against any judgment which may be 24 rendered in favor of plaintiff(s). (Witt v. Jackson, 57 Cal.2d 57, 366 P.2zd 641) 25 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 Defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, 27 plaintiff's employers were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said 28 Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of said employers proximately and 4 DEFENDANT REPUBLIC SUPPLY'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY €~~ ¢ concurrently contributed to any loss or damage, including non-economic damages, complained of by plaintiff(s), if any there were; and that Defendant is not liable for said employers’ proportionate share of non-economic damages. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, parties other than this Defendant were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of said parties proximately and concurrently contributed to any loss or damage, including non-economic damages, complained of by plaintiff(9), if any there were; and that Defendant herein 10 shall not be liable for said parties' proportionate share of non-economic damages. i TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 Defendant alleges that at all times relative to matters alleged in the Complaint, 13 all of plaintiff's employers, other than Defendant, were sophisticated users of 14 asbestos-containing products and said employers’ negligence in providing the product 15 to its employees in a negligent, careless and reckless manner was a superseding cause 16 of plaintiff's injuries, if any. 17 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 If plaintiff(s) has received, or in the future may receive, Worker's 19 Compensation benefits from Defendant under the Labor Code of the State of 20 California as a consequence of the alleged industrial injury referred to in the 2) Complaint, and in the event plaintiff(s) is awarded damages against Defendant, 22 Defendant claims a credit against this award to the extent that Defendant is barred 3 sement for Worker's Compensation benefits that from enforcing his rights to reimbursement 24 plaintiff(s) has received or may in the future receive. 25 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 If plaintiff(s) has received, or in the future may receive Worker's 27 Compensation benefits from Defendant under the Labor Code of the State of 28 California as a consequence of the alleged industrial injury referred to in the 5 DEFENDANT REPUBLIC SUPPLY’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY c e . ~ €+ Complaint, Defendant demands repayment of any such Worker's Compensation benefits in the event that plaintiff(s) recovers tort damages as a result of the industrial injury allegedly involved here. Although Defendant denies the validity of plaintiff's claims, in the event those claims are held valid and not barred by the statute of limita- tions or otherwise, Defendant asserts that cross-demands for money have existed between plaintiff(s) and Defendant and the demands are compensated, so far as they equal each other, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.70. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Acall times and places in the Complaint, plaintiff(s) was not in privity of 10 contract with Defendant and said lack of privity bars plaintiff's recovery herein upon It any theory of warranty. 12 AFFI 3 Plaintiff(s) was barred from recovery in that all products produced by “4 Defendant were in conformity with the existing state-of-the-art, and as a result, these 15 products were not defective in any manner. 16 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 The Defendant did not and does not have a substantial percentage of the 18 market for the asbestos-containing products which allegedly caused plaintiff's 19 injuries. Therefore, Defendant may not be held liable to plaintiffs) based on this 20 Defendant's alleged percentage share of the applicable market. 21 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 Defendants deny any and all liability to the extent that plaintiff asserts 23 Defendant's alleged liability as a successor, successor in business, successor in product 24 line or a portion thereof, assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in 25 product line or a portion thereof, parent, alterego, subsidiary, wholly or partially 26 owned by, or the whole or partial owner of or member in an entity researching, 27 studying, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, labeling, assembling, distributing, 28 leasing, buying, offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting 6 DEFENDANT REPUBLIC SUPPLY’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY ~ € ~ € . for installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, rebranding, manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising a certain substance, the generic name of which is asbestos. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays: (1) That plaintiff takes nothing by his Complaint; (2) That Judgment be entered in favor of Defendant; (3) For recovery of Defendant's costs of suit; (4) For appropriate credits and set-offs arising out of any payment of Worker's Compensation benefits as alleged above; and 10 (5) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. i DATED: September \V » 2002 12 JACKSON & WALLACE Lip 13 14 BY: Kar, mo 15 Atto! ‘or Defendant REPUBLIC SUPPLY COMPANY 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 DEFENDANT REPUBLIC SUPPLY’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY 4 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL §Ccal.‘odeRulesCiv. ofProc., §§ 1013, 2015.5 Court, rule 2008(¢)) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO I, David S. Mandle, declare as follows: Lam over 18 years of a e and not a party to the within action; my business address is 55 Francisco Street, 8 an Francisco, California 94133; I am employed in San Francisco County, California. Iam readily familiar with my employer's practices for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. On September /6 » 2002, I served a ci 0) of the following documents: REPUBLIC SUPPLY COMPANY'S ANS: WE: R TO UNVERIFIED 10 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS on the interested parties in the above-referenced case by following ordina business practices and placing for nN collection and mailing at 55 Francisco Street, San Francisco on September 2002, a true copy of the above-referenced document(s), enclosed in a sealed envelope; in the 12 ordina course of business, the above documents would have been deposited for first- class delive with the United States Postal Service the same day they were placed for 3 deposit, with postage thereon fully prepaid. 4 The foregoing envelopes were addressed as follows: on Purcell TO. 15 Box 2109 16 Novato, CA 94945 7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that oF oregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on September 18 19 20 S David S. Mandle 21 22 33 24 26 27 28 8 DEFENDANT REPUBLIC SUPPLY’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY oo oe