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
HEI San Francisco Superior Courts Information Technology Group Document Scanning Lead Sheet Feb-22-2002 2:08 pm Case Number: CGC-01-402113 Filing Date: Feb-22-2002 2:07 Juke Box: 001 Image: 00366305 ANSWER JAMES JORDAN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC) 001000366305 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. FAX NO. 14153971753 P, 02 | FEB-22-2002 FRI 10:53 AM DRISKER BIDDLE REATH WS CHARLES F, PREUSS (State Bar No. 45783) g TD DENNIS E. RAGLIN (State Bar No. 179261) 4 Baa sior Court DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP San Francisco county 225 Bush Street, 15th Floor 3 San Francisco, California 94104-4207 FEB 22 2002 Telephone: (415) 397-1730 Facsimile: (415) 397-1735 RK. jerk GORDON A PA sjpaty Clerk oy, eer — whey Attomeys for Defendant MONSANTO COMPANY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 9 10 il JAMES JORDAN, No. 402113 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR 12 PERSONAL INJURY-ASBESTOS 13 Vv BY FAX 14 ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC), As Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C, and H; 15 and Does 1-800 Defendants, 16 17 COMES NOW Defendant MONSANTO COMPANY (“Defendant”) and 18 generally and specifically denics each and every allegation, cause of action and prayer 19 for damages in Plaintiff JAMES JORDAN’s, (referred to herein as “‘Plainti!f") unverified 20 Complaint (“the Complaint”) for Personal Injury. Defendant reserves its right to a trial 21 by jury, 22 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 CONTRIBUTORY INE RIDUTUIRYFAULTFAULT 24 Defendant alleges Plaintiff was himself at fault in and about the matters alleged in 25 the Complaint; that said fault on Plaintiff's own part proximately contributed to the > 26 happening of the incidents and the injuries, losses and damages complained of, if any ar GS 27 there were; and that should Plaintiff recover damages, Defendant is cntitled to an offset, 28 Mt Dainxen DINLE up Bush Sic Flog Save sco Callas 24106 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Tolep hee: (216) 3471730 14153971753 PAGE. 62 FEB 22 2082 11:85 FAX NO. 14153972753 P, O03 o™ FEB-22-2002 FR! 10:53 AM DRINKER BIDDLE REATH = => to the extent that Plaintiff's fault caused or contributed to his injuries, losses and damages, if any. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MITIGATION Defendant alleges Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence to 6 mitigate his injuries, losses, and damages, if any. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE ALIVE DEFENSE DEE COMPARATIVE FAULT Defendant alleges the sole proximate and/or partial proximate cause of the 10 injuries, losses, or damages claimed was the fault, negligence, breach of contract, and/or iW strict liability of other Defendants, and/or persons, firms or entities not specifically 12 named in the Complaint, including, without limitation, Plaintiff's employer(s) and 13 union(s). 14 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 16 Defendant alleges the causes of action sct forth in the Complaint are, and cach of 17 them is, barred by the applicable statute of limitations provisions of the Code of Civil 18 Procedure of the State of California, and/or of other statutes of the State of California, 19 including without limitation C.C.P. § § 340, 340.2, and 343. 20 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 ASSUMPTION OF RISK 22 Defendant alleges the risks and dangers altendant to Plaintiff's work with, 23 exposure to, or proximity to the subject products and substances described in the 24 Complaint, if any, were seen, understood and fully known and appreciated by Plaintiff, 25 that all of said risks and dangers were assumed by Plaintiff during all of the times set 26 forth in the Complaint; that Plaintiff voluntarily placed himself in a position of danger, if 27 any such danger did, in fact, exist, and thereby assumed the risk of any and all injuries, 28 losses and damages that might result therefrom, and, therefore, Plaintiff is barred from Danen Boots & REATA LLP 2 225 Bush loot San Fran orig $4104 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Tonpron 07 1239 14153971753 PAGE . a3 FEB 22 2002 11:85 A FAX NO, 1415397: 753 oe FEB-22-2002 FR: 10:53 AM DRINKER BIDDLE REATH VY any recovery which he might otherwise have. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TMPROPEX R USE OF PRODUCTS Defendant alleges the products and substances identified in the Complaint were fit and safe for their normal and intended use, handling and storage; and any and all damages, injurics and losses, if any, were caused by the abnormal, unforeseeable and improper usc, handling and storage of said products and substances. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CONTRIBUTION/EQUITABLE INDEMNITY 10 Defendant allege, in the event they are held liable to Plaintiff, which liability is i expressly denicd, and any other co-Defendants are likewisc held liable, Defendant is 12 entitled to a percentage contribution of the total liability from said co-Defendants in 13 accordance with the principles of equitable indemnity and comparative contribution. 14 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4S PROPOSITION 51 16 Defendant alleges Plaintiff’s potential damage recovery in this action is governed 17 by the Pair Responsibility Act of 1986 ("Proposition 51") [Civil Code 1431.2(a)), 18 which provides that, "in any action for personal injury . . . based upon principles of 19 comparative fault, the liability of cach Defendant for non-economic damages shall be 20 several only and shall not be joint." Accordingly, Defendant can be liable, if at all, only 21 for (he amount of non-economic damages allocated to Defendant, in direct proportion to 22 its percentage of fault in causing the injuries and damages alleged in the Complaint. 23 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DE) FrPENSE 24 FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION 25 Defendant alleges the Complaint, and cach cause of action thcreof, fails Lo state 26 facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. 27 Mt 28 Mt DrmazaO100.¢ & Meaty Lie 3 295 Nuih Sitool, 18° Floor San Frareinea. Cotiernin 94104 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Tlogtone) (418) 327-1780 14153971753 PAGE. 4 FEB 22 2002 11:06 DRINKER BIDDLE REATH FAX NO. 14153971753 FEB-22-2002 FRI 10:53 AM ‘TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNAVAILABLE Neither the Complaint, nor any purported cause of action alleged therein, states facts sufficient to entitle Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages against Defendant. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS SET-OFF Defendant allege, at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff was employed and was entitled to receive Workers’ Compensation benefits from his employer(s); that Plaintiff's employer was negligent in and about the matters referred to 10 in the Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of said employer(s) proximately il and concurrently caused and/or contributed to the happening of the injuries, losses and 12 damages complained of by Plaintiff, if any, and that by reason thereof, Defendant is 13 entitled to set off any such bencfits received by Plaintiff, or to be reccived by Plaintiff, 14 against any judgment which may be rendered in favor of Plaintiff. 15 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 PECULIAR RISK DOCTRINE INAPPL) ICABLE 17 Defendant alleges Plaintiff's Complaint fails 1o state facts sufficient to constitute 18 a cause of action against Defendant under the peculiar risk doctrine and, in fact, the 19 peculiar risk doctrine does not apply to the matters alleged in the Complaint. (Privette 20 vy. Superior Court) 21 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 CONTRACTUAL INDEMNITY 23 Defendant alleges they contracted with Plaintiff's employer(s) for said 24 employer(s) to fully assume all responsibility for insuring Plaintiff's safety, and to 25 guarantee no hazardous conditions existed, and/or to warn and protect against any such 26 conditions, during the performance of Plaintiff's work at Defendant’S facilities, it any, 27 and, further, for said employer(s) to fully indemnify Defendant, and to hold Defendant 28 Mt Dunner BiOO.C & REATALLF 4 22s Teor Fra Cai ia A108 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT slaphores [418) 2 0 14153971753 PAGE. 2S FEB 22 2082 11:86 a FEB-22-2002 FRi 10:54 AM DRINKER BIDDLE REATH FAX NO. 14153971753 P, 08 Ww harmless, for all responsibility and liability arising out of said work, and/or any injuries allegedly incurred by Plaintiff as a result of any of said work. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FAL LURE TO JOIN PARTIES Defendant alleges Plaintiff has failed to join all proper parties, or alternatively, have mis-joined the parties to the action. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CONSENT Defendant alleges that at all times mentioned, Plaintiff consented to the alleged 10 acts of Defendant, i SUIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 P UNITIVE DAMAGES UNCONSTITUTIONAL 13 Defendant alleges Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of punitive or exemplary 14 damages in this action. Such an award would be unconstitutional unless Defendant is 15 accorded the safeguards provided under the Slate of California Constitution, and the 16 United States Constitution. 17 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 RES JUDICATA/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL 19 Defendant alleges the entire complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred 20 by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. 21 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 WAIVER/ESTOPPEL 23 Defendant alleges the entire complaint, and each cause of action thercof, is barred 24 by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, and/or res judicata based on the fact Plaintiff has 25 litigated identical claims in another action. 26 i 27 MW 28 Mt Dauwen BINCLE & REATHULP 28 Qusm Stree, 18° Floor 55 San Francisco. C: i DAt06 Toiaphena (419) 27-1759 ANSWIER TO COMPLAINT 14153971753 PAGE. 85 EB 22 2082 11:26 FEB-22-2002 FR: 10:54 AM DRINKER SIDDLE REATH FAX NO. 14153972753 oo a NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CHES Defendant alleges the entire complaint, and each cause of action thercof, is barred by the doctrine of laches. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE UNCLEAN HANDS Defendant alleges the cntire complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 BAD FAITH lL Defendant alleges the entire complaint, and cach cause of action thereof, is barred 12 by the doctrine of bad faith. 13 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 PREMISES UNDER EMPLOYERS’ CONTROL 15 Defendant alleges that at all times material herein, the premises upon which 16 Plaintiff's alleged injuries occurred were under the sole control of Plaintiff's employer(s). 7 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVEEE DEFENSE ALPEN EEN 18 PRIMARY RIGHT DOCTRINE 19 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has improperly split his causes of action, and 20 sceks to maintain a duplicative action based on the same facts and circumstances 2} alleged in a previously filed lawsuit, and therefore, this action is barred by the primary 22 22 right doctrine and principles of equity and fairness. 23 TWENTY-FOURTH AENEADIE E AFFIRMATIVE ARTA DEFENSE 24 STATE-OF-THE-ART 25 Defendant alleges the injuries resulting, if any, from the usc of the products, 26 chemicals or compounds referred to in Plaintiff's complaint, were not foreseeable to 27 Defendant, given the state of scientific knowledge and state-of-the-art at the time of the 28 alleged injuries. Daw Biop.c A REATLLD 28 9 Sites!, 1S* Noor 6 Son 0, Co’ iy 4°04 Taloptvann (€13) 257-4720 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 14153971753 PAGE. 87 FEB 22 2002 11:06 FAX NO. 14.53971753 P, 08 ea 22-202 FR: 10:54 AM DRINKER BIDDLE REATH ~~ TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE VIOLATION OF SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT GENERAL ORDERS Defendant alleges Plaintiff's allegations regarding increascd risk of developing mesothelioma, lung cancer and various other cancers, violate San Francisco Superior Court General Orders. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays as follows: 1, That Plaintiff takes nothing by way of the Complaint; 2. That in the event Defendant is held liable, its degree of responsibility and 9 liability for the injuries, losses or damages, if any, be detcrmincd, and that Defendant be 10 held liable only for its proportionate share of Plaintiff's damages; li 3. For costs of suit hercin incurred; 12 4. For attorneys' fees pursuant to Civil Procedure Code § 1038; and 13 5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 14 15 16 Date: February 2% 2002 DRINKER BIDDLE. & REATIH LLP oF \7 a - weer 18 Bae E RAGLIN = 19 Attorneys for Defendant 20 MONSANTO COMPANY 21 22 23 INDO SRTIZNTOH DYESS ep Tetwrusey 22, 1002 24 25 26 27 28 DnunkcH Bi001€ & AEATH ALP 225 Duns Stoel, 18° Fisor 7 San Frsnosszo, Calforna 94104 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Telaphone, (415) 207-1739 141$3971753 PAGE. @8 FEB 22 2062 11:07 a FEB-22-2002 FR] 10:55 AM DRINKER BIDDLE REATH FAX NO. 14153971753 P, 08 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL James Jordan v. Asbestos Defendants (BUC), et al. [1 including Monsanto} (SFSC No. 402113) I, Brenda J.Mojarro, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Californi a that the following is true and correct: Tam over the age of 18 years, and nota party to or interested in the within entitled action. I am an employee of Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP; 225 Bush Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, California 94104; (415) 397 1730. I caused to be served by mail the following document(s): {Monsanto’s] ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Tenclosed a true copy of said document(s) in an onvelope, uddrossed as follows: David R. Donadio; Brayton Purcell, 222 Rush Landing Road, Novato, CA 94945-2469 Zam readily familiar with my firm’s practice for collection and Processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, to-wil, that correspondence will be deposited with the United States Postal Service this same day in the ordinary course of business. I sealed said envclope and placed it for collection and mailing on February 22, 2002 following the ordinary business practice, T declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. I further declare that T am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made, Executed on February 22, 2002 at San Francisco, Califomia. Brenda J. Mojarr FEB 22 2082 11:07 14153971753 PAGE. @9