Preview
UM
San Francisco Superior Courts
Information Technology Group
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Feb-20-2002 4:04 pm
Case Number: CGC-01-402113
Filing Date: Feb-20-2002 4:00
Juke Box: 001 Image: 00364737
ANSWER
JAMES JORDAN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC)
001C00364737
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.
—— Be
MORGENSTEIN & JUBELIRER LLP 5
JEFFREY R. WILLIAMS ( Bar No. 084156)
DAVID W. AMMONS (Bar No. 187168) 7
One Market, Spear Street Tower Cy Dea
Thirty-Second Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105 SLERK
Telephone: (415 901-8700 By,
Arthur Moy
Facsimile: (415 901-8701 EF
Sak
Attorneys for Defendant
4520 CORP.
Caw 203-0°
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
11 JAMES JORDAN, CASE NO. 402113
12 Plaintiff, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO
PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
13 Vv. FOR PERSONAL INJURY
Se
ag
E2
£5 14 ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC) As
2g
g¢
Be
ge Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C, F,
az
o3
ES 15 and H; and DOES 1-800,
16 Defendants.
17
Defendant 4520 CORP. answers Plaintiff's unverified Complaint on its own behalf
18
and on behalf of no other defendant as follows:
19
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30(d), Defendant
20
denies generally each and every allegation of the Complaint.
21
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22
Neither the Complaint nor any purported cause of action alleged by the Plaintiff
23
therein states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant.
24
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25
To the extent the Complaint asserts Defendant's alleged "market share" liability,
26
or "enterprise liability," the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
27
action against Defendant.
28
73101.00102
377944.1
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
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.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The imposition of any punitive damages in this matter would deprive Defendant of
its property without due process of law under the California Constitution and United
States Constitution.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The imposition of any punitive damages in this matter would violate the United
10 States Constitution's prohibition against laws impairing the obligation of contracts.
11 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 The imposition of any punitive damages in this matter would constitute a criminal
13 fine or penalty and should, therefore, be remitted on the ground that the award violates
Se
ig
e3
2g 14 the United States Constitution.
ee
ge
ae
ge
ge
Sz
ES 15 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 Plaintiff's action, and each alleged cause of action, is barred by the applicable
17 statute of limitations, including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure,
18 Sections 338, 339, 340(3), 340.2, 343, 353, and 474 and California Commercial Code,
19 Section 2725 and including any applicable statute of limitation and/or statute of response
20 of the state of plaintiffs residence if not California.
21 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in bringing this action, without good cause therefor,
23 and thereby have prejudiced Defendant as a direct and proximate result of such delay;
24 accordingly, this action is barred by laches.
25 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 Plaintiff was negligent in and about the matters alleged in the Complaint and in
27 each alleged cause of action; this negligence proximately caused, in whole or in part,
28 the damages alleged in the Complaint. In the event Plaintiff is entitled to any damages,
73101.00102
3779441
-2-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
the amount of these damages should be reduced by the comparative fault of Plaintiff and
any person whose negligent acts or omissions are imputed to Plaintiff.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff knowingly, voluntarily and unreasonably undertook to encounter each of
the risks and hazards, if any, referred to in the Complaint and each alleged cause of
action, and this undertaking proximately caused and contributed to any loss, injury or
damages incurred by Plaintiff.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Any loss, injury or damage incurred by Plaintiff was proximately caused by the
10 negligent or willful acts or omissions of parties whom Defendant neither controlled nor
VW had the right to control, and was not proximately caused by any acts, omissions or other
12 conduct of Defendant.
13 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
59
ag
e3
28
ae 14 The products referred to in the Complaint were misused, abused or altered by
ge
be
ge
ge
S23
Eo 15 Plaintiff or by others; the misuse, abuse or alteration was not reasonably foreseeable to
16 Defendant, and proximately caused any loss, injury or damages incurred by Plaintiff.
17 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 Defendant alleges that its products were manufactured, produced, supplied, sold
19 and distributed in mandatory conformity with specifications promulgated by the United
20 States Government and/or foreign government under its war powers, as set forth in its
21 Constitution, and/or laws of that country, and that any recovery by Plaintiff on the
22 Complaint on file herein is barred in consequence of the exercise of those sovereign
23 powers.
24 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 Plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence to mitigate their loss, injury or damages;
26 accordingly, the amount of damages to which Plaintiff is entitled, if any, should be
27 reduced by the amount of damages which would have otherwise been mitigated.
28
73101.00102
377944.1
-3-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
we
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged in the
Complaint because the Complaint and each alleged cause of action against Defendant
is barred by the provisions of California Labor Code, Section 3601, et seq.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff
was employed and they were entitled to receive Workers' Compensation benefits from
their employer; that Plaintiff's employer, other than Defendant, was negligent in and
about the matters referred to in said Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of
10 said employer proximately and concurrently contributed to the happening of the accident
1 and to the loss or damage complained of by Plaintiff, if any there were, and that by
12 reason thereof Defendant is entitled to set off any such benefits to be received by
13 Plaintiff against any judgment which may be rendered in favor of Plaintiff.
52
ag
Ee
23 14 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
oe
ge
be
ge
Bz
g2 Discovery may show that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint,
BG 15
16 Plaintiff was employed by and entitled to Workers' Compensation benefits from
17 defendant; such benefits constitute plaintiff's exclusive remedy pursuant to Labor Code
18 section 3600 et seq.
19 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 Defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint,
a1 Plaintiff's employers were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said
22 Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of said employers proximately and
23 concurrently contributed to any loss or damage, including non-economic damages,
24 complained of by Plaintiff, if any there were; and that Defendant is not liable for said
25 employers' proportionate share of non-economic damages.
26 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 Defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, parties
28 other than this Defendant were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said
73101.00102
377944.1
-4-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
2
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, if any there were; and that Defendant herein shall not be liable
for said parties' proportionate share of non-economic damages.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that at all times relevant to matters alleged in the Complaint,
Plaintiff's employer was a sophisticated user of asbestos-containing products and the
employer's negligence in providing the product to its employees in a negligent, careless
and reckless manner is a superseding cause of Plaintiff's injuries.
10 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 If Plaintiff has received, or in the future may receive, Workers' Compensation
12 benefits from Defendant under the Labor Code of the State of California as a
13 consequence of the alleged industrial injury referred to in the Complaint, and in the event
Se
ag
e3
eg 14 that Defendant is held liable to Plaintiff, any award against Defendant must be reduced
a2
g2
Eo 15 in the amount of all such benefits received by Plaintiff.
16 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 If Plaintiff has received, or in the future may receive, Workers' Compensation
18 benefits from Defendant under the Labor Code of the State of California as a
19 consequence of the alleged industrial injury referred to in the Complaint, and in the event
20 Plaintiff is awarded damages against Defendant, Defendant claims a credit against this
21 award to the extent that Defendant is barred from enforcing its rights to reimbursement
22 for Workers' Compensation benefits that Plaintiff have received or may in the future
23 receive.
24 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 lf Plaintiff has received, or in the future may receive Workers' Compensation
26 benefits from Defendant under the Labor Code of the State of California as a
27 consequence of the alleged industrial injury referred to in the Complaint, Defendant
28 demands repayment of any such Workers' Compensation benefits in the event that
73101,00102
3779441
-5-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Plaintiff recover 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 limitations or otherwise, Defendant asserts
that cross-demands for money have existed between Plaintiff 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-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
At all times and places in the Complaint, Plaintiff was not in privity of contract with
Defendant and said lack of privity bars Plaintiff's recovery herein upon any theory of
10 warranty.
11 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 Plaintiff is barred from recovery in that all products produced by Defendant were
13 in conformity with the existing state-of-the-art, and as a result, these products were not
Se
Baeg2
$2 14 defective in any manner.
Be
ZeeSs
BS 15 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Be
16 Defendant did not and does not have a substantial percentage of the market for
17 the asbestos-containing products which allegedly caused Plaintiff's injuries. Therefore,
18 Defendant may not be held liable to Plaintiff based on Defendant's alleged percentage
19 share of the applicable market.
20 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 Defendant denies any and all liability to the extent that Plaintiff asserts
22 Defendant's alleged liability as a successor, successor in business, successor in product
23 line or a portion thereof, assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in
24 product line or a portion thereof, parent, alter ego, equitable trustee, subsidiary, wholly or
25 partially owned by, or the whole or partial owner of or member in an entity researching,
26 studying, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, labeling, assembling, distributing,
27 leasing, buying, offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting for
28 installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, rebranding, manufacturing for others,
73101.00102
377944.1
-6-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
—_—
packaging and advertising a certain substance, the generic name of which is asbestos or
a product which contains asbestos.
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant had no knowledge that any of the alleged activities of which Plaintiff
complains, and which allegedly were conducted on premises owned by this Defendant,
were unsafe or dangerous, and Defendant therefore did not have a duty to warn Plaintiff
regarding any such alleged dangers.
TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that it was under no legal duty to warn plaintiff of the hazards
10 associated with the use of products containing asbestos. Defendant further alleges that
11 the purchasers of said products, plaintiff's employer/s, his union/s or certain third parties
12 yet to be identified, were knowledgeable and sophisticated users and were in a better
13 position to warn plaintiff of the risks associated with using products containing asbestos
Se
ae 14 and, assuming a warning was required, it was the failure of such persons or entities to
22
g2
Ba 15 give such a warning that was the proximate and superseding cause of plaintiff's
16 damages, if any.
17 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 Defendant alleges that no conduct by or attributable to it was the cause in fact or
19 the proximate cause of the damages, if any, suffered by plaintiff, nor a substantial factor
20 in bringing about said damages.
21 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 Defendant alleges that its liability, if any, in this matter is extremely minor relative
23 to the liability of various third parties and, therefore, the damages, if any, assessed
24 against it should be proportionate to the degree, nature and extent of its fault.
25 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 Plaintiff herein has failed to join indispensable parties and the complaint is thereby
27 defective, and plaintiff is thereby precluded from any recovery whatsoever as prayed for
28 herein.
73101.00162
377944.1
-7-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
—
THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that if plaintiff's claims were already litigated and resolved in
any prior action, plaintiff's claims herein are barred based on the primary right and res
judicata doctrines which prohibit splitting a single cause of action into successive suits,
and seeking new recovery for injuries for which the plaintiff was previously compensated
by alleged joint tortfeasors.
THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 378 and 430.10(q), if it is
determined that multiple plaintiffs have been listed on this complaint, then this defendant
10 contends the plaintiffs are misjoined. Because joinder is defective and improper, and
11 defendants will be prejudiced by having to proceed against different plaintiffs with
12 dissimilar cases, a single trial is unfair and a hardship, and separate trials on each
13 individual cause of action should be ordered.
Se
Bee
BesE32
oe 14 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
aigge
Za:
zee
Be
BES 15 The matters alleged in this complaint are encompassed within and barred by a
Be
16 settlement and release agreement reached by the parties which operates as a merger
17 and bar against any further litigation on matters raised or potentially raised in connection
18 with the settlement and release.
19 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 To the extent that plaintiff has previously filed a dismissal in court dismissing all of
21 its asserted claims, causes of action, and other theories of liability against this defendant
22 with prejudice, the matters alleged in this complaint are barred by retraxit.
23 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 To the extent that plaintiff has reached an accord with defendant regarding this
25 litigation and this accord was then properly satisfied, the claims, causes of action,
26 theories of liability and matters alleged in this complaint are barred by the doctrine of
27 accord and satisfaction. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays:
28 (1) That Plaintiff take nothing by his Complaint;
73101.00102
377944.1
-8-
ANSWER TO 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 Workers’
Compensation benefits as alleged above, and
6) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: February2°, 2002 MORGENSTEIN & JUBELIRER LLP
Bi DY
“DAVID W. AMMONS
Attorneys for Defendant
4520 CORP.
10
11
12
13
az
Sg
Bes53 14
Beg
Bigge
Zee
aes
BES 15
Be
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
73101,00102
377944.1
-9-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
PROOF OF SERVICE
|, IFFY MADUEWESI, declare:
lam a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and
not a party to the within action; my business address is One Market, Spear Street Tower,
Thirty-Second Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105. On February 22, 2002, | caused to be
served the within documents:
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
O by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax
number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
fx by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage
thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at San Francisco,
California addressed as set forth below.
10
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed
11 envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be
delivered toa agent for delivery.
12
13
O by causing the document(s) listed above to be personally delivered to the
person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.
ae
BS¢
BesEe 14
Beg
Bbs
zeege SEE ATTACHED LIST
Bez
BES 15
Be | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
16 above is true and correct.
17 Executed on February2e 2002, at San Francisco, California.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
73101.00102
3779441
PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF SERVICE
213/556-2645
1608, Century City, CA 90067
Boyajian & Associates, 1888 Century Park East, Ste. 415/898-1555,
2109, Novato, CA 94948
Brayton-Purcell, 222 Rush Landing Road, P.O. Box Fax: 415/898-1247
707/224-6547
Bruce L. Ahnfeldt, Esq., P.O. Box 6078, Napa, CA 94581 Fax; 701/224-2518
619/238-1811
CA 92101
Casey, Gerry, Reed & Schenk, 110 Laurel St., San Diego, Fax: 619/544-9232
510/832-2980,
Street, Oakland, CA 94612
Christopher E. Grell, The Broadlake Plaza, 360 22 Fax: 510/832-2986
925/938-9100
Creek, CA 94596
Collins & Schwartz, 1111 Civic Dr., Suite 240, Walnut
415/871-5669
Corey & Orton, 700 El Camino Real, Millbrae, CA 94030 408/244-5832,
Crowley & Clark, 831 S. Winchester Bivd., San Jose, CA 95128
213/552-2121
CA 90067
Davis & Thomas, 1999 Ave. of the Stars, Ste. 2310, Los Angeles,
510/832-5409
Oakland, CA 94612
Digardi & Campbell, 436-14th St, 616 Central Bldg., 510/372-3304
,035
CA 94556-1
aga
George W. Kilbourne, Esq., 661 Augusta Drive, Mor 415/981-8855,
‘San Francisco, CA 94111
Goldstein & Phillips, One Embarcadero Center, 8th Fl.,
Avenue, Suite 900, Tucson, AZ 85701-1620
Haralson, Miller, Pitt & McAnally, P.C., One 'S. Church
Harrison Kemp & Jones, 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway 17°, Las Vegas, NV 89109 415/788-2500
Herron & Herron, 600 Montgomery Street, 33rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
Thomas F. Byrne, Esq, 707/544-9006
Hinton, Byrne & ‘Cochran, 50 Old Courthouse Sq., Ste 601, Santa Rosa, CA 95404, Attn: Fax: 707/544-1213
415/543-9464
St., 18th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103
Hoberg, Finger, Brown, Cox & Molligan, 703 Market 925/757-1020
525
Hobin & Shingler, LLP, 1011 A Street, Antioch, CA 94509-2 Fax; 925/757-2633
707/455-2071
Drawer 1288, Eureka, CA 95501
Janssen, Malloy, Marchi, Needham & Morrison, P.O. 415/543-1111
San Francisco, CA 94105
Jarvis, Miller, Brodsky & Baskin, 221 Main St, Ste. 1001, 415/861-1886
San Francisco, CA 94102
John C. Smith, Fox Plaza, Suite 702, 1390 Market Street, 510/465-7728
CA 94607
Kazan, McClain, et al., 171 ‘Twelfth Street, Ste. 300, Oakland, Fax; 510/835-4913
714/851-1200
CA 92660
,
Kenneth L. Knapp, 1109 Quail Street, Newport Beach
Center, 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Portland, OR 97201
Landye Bennett Blumstein, LLP, 3500 Wells Faro 619/238-1811
Law Offices of Dwight. Ritter, 170 Laurel Street, San Diego, CA 92101 619/544-9232
916/444-2622,
Suite 600, Sacramento, CA 95821
Law Offices of EugeneC. Treaster, 3838 Watt Avenue, 415/332-4262
2330 Marinship Way, Suite 140, Sausalito, CA 94965
‘Law Offices of JackK. Clapper, Marina Office Plaza, 415/331-5387
415/543-0770
San Francisco, CA 94105
Law Offices of Steven B. Stein, 150 Spear Street, Ste. 1800, Fax: 415/543-4332
213/627-0800
Angeles, CA 90071-2300
Lewis & Scholnick, 555 S. Flower Street, Suite 4520, Los Fax; 213/627-7262
415/391-1560
o, CA 94111
Mack, Hazetwood, Franecke& Tinney, 425 Battery Street, Suite 450, San Francisc 415/882-2992
San Francisco, CA 94105
‘McCarthy, Johnson & Miller, 595 Market St., Ste. 2200, 213/395-9299
Monica, CA 90401
Moreno, Purcell & Schindler, 227 Broadway, Suite 200, Santa
2772, Boise, ID 83701
Nevin, Herzfeld & Benjamin, 303 W. Bannock, P.O. Box
CA 90017
South Figueroa Street, Suite 3800, Los Angeles,
Nordstrom, Steele, Nicholette, Blythe & Jefferson, 601 916/444-0321
das & Timmons, P.O. Box 965, Sacramento, CA 95812-0965 510/559-9980
CA 94804
Paul & Hanley, 4905 Central Aveaue, Suite 200, Richmond, 510/559-9970
510/234-8890
2090 23rd Street, Box 35, San Pablo, CA 94806
Pelletreau, Moses, Larson, Alderson & Jacobsmeyer,
Revised 01/10/02,
22222.00001/334870.1
.—
97204
Preston Bunnell & Stone, LLP, 1100 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1405, Portland, Oregon
Robert Fain, 10 N. 27* Street, Suite 320, P.O. Box 1018, Billings, MY 59103-1018
415/788-4220
Robert C. Schubert, Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1050, San Francisco, CA 94111
303/371-5944
Robles & Gonzales, One Bayfront Plaza, 100 Biscayne Bivd., Ste. 900, Miami, FL 33131
Rose, Klein & Marias, 801 S. Grand Avenue, 18" Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017-4645
90048 213/653-0211
Simke, Chodos, Silberfeld & Soll, Inc., 6300 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 9000, Los Angeles, CA
510/267-0500
Sterns & Walker, 901 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94607
Fax: 510/267-0506
415/441-1707
Visse & Yanez, 1375 Sutter Street, Suite 120, San Francisco, CA 94109 Fax: 415/441-2045
CA 94111 415/986-5566,
Wartnick, Chaber, Harowitz, Smith & Tigerman, 101 California Street, 22 Floor, San Francisco,
‘Ward, Keenan & Barrett, 3030 N. 3% Street, Suite 930, Phoenix, AZ 85012
*
Waters & Kraus, LLP, 200 Oceangate, Suite 520, Long Beach, CA 90802
94063 415/365-7333
Wilhelm, Thompson, Wentholt & Gibbs, 702 Marshall Street, Suite 510, Redwood City, CA
415/882-4500
William C. Gordon, Esq., 58 Second St., 3rd Fl., San Francisco, CA 94105
303/442-0173
Williams, Trine, et al., J. Conard Metcalf, 1435 Arapahoe Ave., Boulder, CO 80302-6390 Fax: 303/443-7677
Wright Tolliver & Guthals, Windoor Court, 10 N. 27® Street, P.O. Box 1977
Revised 01/10/02
22222.00001/334870.1
CO-DEFENDANTS PROOF OF SERVICE
(CASE NAME:
16" joor, San 415/905-0200
bex Corp/Pneumo Abex Corp. - McQuaid, Metzler, McCormick & Van Zandt, 221 Main Street,
Fax: 415/905-0202
Francisco, CA 94111
510/433-2600
Ace Hardware Corp. - Lombardi, Loper & Conant, 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1950, Oakland, CA 94612
Fax 510/433-2699
~The St. Peter Law Group, 20 California Street, 7 Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 415/955-0700
ACandS
Fax: 415/955-0711
CandS/A&A ilding Mat Co. - Prindle, Decker & Amarro, 310 Golden Shore Street, 4 Floc:, Long Beach, 562/436-3946
CA 90802 Fax: 562/495-0564
erojet General Corp. - Bailey & Brown, 1419 21st Street, Sacramento, CA 95825
City, 650/592-5400
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. ~ Coddington, Hicks & Danford, 555 Twin Dolphin Dr., Suite 300, Redwood
CA 94066 Fax: 650/592-5027
fedical alifor cificMe minican Santa Hospital/Rideout 510/465-3922
Ita Bat
‘General Hospital/Sutter Memorial Hospital— Rankin, a & Pollack, Fax: 510/452-3006
‘Hospita/Summit Medical, eae
1800 Harrison Street, Suite 1616, Oakland, CCA 94604
Alta Buildi
. Cor Hardin, Cook, Loper, Engel & Bergez, 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor, 510/444-3131
510/839-7940
Oakland,CA 94612-3541
Roche, 333 Bush Street, 18th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104 415/296-0333
Amer. Brake - Sullivan,
std JW yhouse_ ir Bake Co/E. J. Bartels Paetzold, White & Brodsky, 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 510/267-0112
330, Oakland, CA 94612-3741 Fax: 510/267-0113
merican Asbestos — Mr. Ray Colman, American Asbestos Company, P.O. Box 981, Petaluma, CA 94953
Roach & 510/763-2000
Motors Corp/Chrysler Corp/Bridgestone/Lear Siegler/Worldbestos/Royal Ind. - Crosby, Heafey,
May, 1999 Harrison St. Oakland, CA 94612
818/584-6968
mer. Mot . - Law Offices of Raymond G. Kolts, The Walnut Plaza, 3rd Floor, 215 North Marengo Avenue,
Pasadena, CA 91101
yn — McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, Three Embarcadero Center, 415/393-2000
Amer. Pres. Lines/C&H Sugar/Domtar/Mat
28th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111
94111
CA o, 415/434-4914
Amer. Optical/Charter Consol. - Sheppard, Mullia, 4 Embarcadero, 17thFl., San Francisc
415/392-5528
A Optical — Law Offices of Gary J. Nevolo, One Maritime Plaza, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94111 415/392-5828
Fax:
415/837-1515
metek, Inc. - Allen, Matkins, Leck, et al., 333 Bursh Street, 17* Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104 415/837-1516
(Los Angeles) - Lewis, D'Amato, Five Park, 261 So. Figueroa St., #300, Los Angeles, CA 90012
mer, Std.
CA 94111 415/986-2800
Amfac Distbr/Oakland Shtmtl, He - Folger & Levin, Attn: Doug Sullivan, 275 Battery, San Francisco, Fax: 415/986-2827
925/296-2600
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. - Fleming & Phillips, 1340 Treat Bivd., Suite 630, ‘Walnut Creek, CA 94596-2101
925/296-2626
nchor Pkg/Garlock/Colt Ind. ~ Glaspy& Glaspy, 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 750, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
9251947-1300
9251947-1594
Suite 618, Pasadena, CA 91101 626/568-0834
Anchor Packing Co/Garlock — Baronian Law Firm, 301 East Colorado Blvd., Fax: 6261564-6018
Bivd., #250, 9251944-5550
sbestos Corp/Atlas Turner/Bell Asb./Wagner Elec. ~ Stevens, Drummond & Gifford, 1910 Olympic Fax; 925/256-9669
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
415/537-3930
A.W..Chesterton Co/Durametallic/Simpson Paper Company/Reliable Building Materials Imai, Tadlock &
Keeney, 185 Berry Street, San Francisco, CA 94107 ~
Fax; 415/537-3938
9251943-6383
Bal & Wilcox/MéDermott -’ Anderson, Galloway, 1676 No. California Blvd., Suite 50, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Fax 9251943-7542
415/981-6630
ank ofAt ica/Moore. Dock/Thot son Buildir faterials, Inc. - Low, Ball & Lynch, 601 California Street,
415/982-1634
San Francisco, CA 94108-2898
Preview
UM San Francisco Superior Courts Information Technology Group Document Scanning Lead Sheet Feb-20-2002 4:04 pm Case Number: CGC-01-402113 Filing Date: Feb-20-2002 4:00 Juke Box: 001 Image: 00364737 ANSWER JAMES JORDAN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC) 001C00364737 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. —— Be MORGENSTEIN & JUBELIRER LLP 5 JEFFREY R. WILLIAMS ( Bar No. 084156) DAVID W. AMMONS (Bar No. 187168) 7 One Market, Spear Street Tower Cy Dea Thirty-Second Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 SLERK Telephone: (415 901-8700 By, Arthur Moy Facsimile: (415 901-8701 EF Sak Attorneys for Defendant 4520 CORP. Caw 203-0° SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 11 JAMES JORDAN, CASE NO. 402113 12 Plaintiff, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 13 Vv. FOR PERSONAL INJURY Se ag E2 £5 14 ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC) As 2g g¢ Be ge Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C, F, az o3 ES 15 and H; and DOES 1-800, 16 Defendants. 17 Defendant 4520 CORP. answers Plaintiff's unverified Complaint on its own behalf 18 and on behalf of no other defendant as follows: 19 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30(d), Defendant 20 denies generally each and every allegation of the Complaint. 21 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 Neither the Complaint nor any purported cause of action alleged by the Plaintiff 23 therein states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. 24 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 To the extent the Complaint asserts Defendant's alleged "market share" liability, 26 or "enterprise liability," the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of 27 action against Defendant. 28 73101.00102 377944.1 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 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. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The imposition of any punitive damages in this matter would deprive Defendant of its property without due process of law under the California Constitution and United States Constitution. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The imposition of any punitive damages in this matter would violate the United 10 States Constitution's prohibition against laws impairing the obligation of contracts. 11 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 The imposition of any punitive damages in this matter would constitute a criminal 13 fine or penalty and should, therefore, be remitted on the ground that the award violates Se ig e3 2g 14 the United States Constitution. ee ge ae ge ge Sz ES 15 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 Plaintiff's action, and each alleged cause of action, is barred by the applicable 17 statute of limitations, including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure, 18 Sections 338, 339, 340(3), 340.2, 343, 353, and 474 and California Commercial Code, 19 Section 2725 and including any applicable statute of limitation and/or statute of response 20 of the state of plaintiffs residence if not California. 21 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in bringing this action, without good cause therefor, 23 and thereby have prejudiced Defendant as a direct and proximate result of such delay; 24 accordingly, this action is barred by laches. 25 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 Plaintiff was negligent in and about the matters alleged in the Complaint and in 27 each alleged cause of action; this negligence proximately caused, in whole or in part, 28 the damages alleged in the Complaint. In the event Plaintiff is entitled to any damages, 73101.00102 3779441 -2- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT the amount of these damages should be reduced by the comparative fault of Plaintiff and any person whose negligent acts or omissions are imputed to Plaintiff. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff knowingly, voluntarily and unreasonably undertook to encounter each of the risks and hazards, if any, referred to in the Complaint and each alleged cause of action, and this undertaking proximately caused and contributed to any loss, injury or damages incurred by Plaintiff. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any loss, injury or damage incurred by Plaintiff was proximately caused by the 10 negligent or willful acts or omissions of parties whom Defendant neither controlled nor VW had the right to control, and was not proximately caused by any acts, omissions or other 12 conduct of Defendant. 13 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 59 ag e3 28 ae 14 The products referred to in the Complaint were misused, abused or altered by ge be ge ge S23 Eo 15 Plaintiff or by others; the misuse, abuse or alteration was not reasonably foreseeable to 16 Defendant, and proximately caused any loss, injury or damages incurred by Plaintiff. 17 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 Defendant alleges that its products were manufactured, produced, supplied, sold 19 and distributed in mandatory conformity with specifications promulgated by the United 20 States Government and/or foreign government under its war powers, as set forth in its 21 Constitution, and/or laws of that country, and that any recovery by Plaintiff on the 22 Complaint on file herein is barred in consequence of the exercise of those sovereign 23 powers. 24 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 Plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence to mitigate their loss, injury or damages; 26 accordingly, the amount of damages to which Plaintiff is entitled, if any, should be 27 reduced by the amount of damages which would have otherwise been mitigated. 28 73101.00102 377944.1 -3- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT we FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged in the Complaint because the Complaint and each alleged cause of action against Defendant is barred by the provisions of California Labor Code, Section 3601, et seq. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff was employed and they were entitled to receive Workers' Compensation benefits from their employer; that Plaintiff's employer, other than Defendant, was negligent in and about the matters referred to in said Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of 10 said employer proximately and concurrently contributed to the happening of the accident 1 and to the loss or damage complained of by Plaintiff, if any there were, and that by 12 reason thereof Defendant is entitled to set off any such benefits to be received by 13 Plaintiff against any judgment which may be rendered in favor of Plaintiff. 52 ag Ee 23 14 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE oe ge be ge Bz g2 Discovery may show that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, BG 15 16 Plaintiff was employed by and entitled to Workers' Compensation benefits from 17 defendant; such benefits constitute plaintiff's exclusive remedy pursuant to Labor Code 18 section 3600 et seq. 19 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 Defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, a1 Plaintiff's employers were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said 22 Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of said employers proximately and 23 concurrently contributed to any loss or damage, including non-economic damages, 24 complained of by Plaintiff, if any there were; and that Defendant is not liable for said 25 employers' proportionate share of non-economic damages. 26 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 Defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, parties 28 other than this Defendant were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said 73101.00102 377944.1 -4- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 2 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, if any there were; and that Defendant herein shall not be liable for said parties' proportionate share of non-economic damages. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that at all times relevant to matters alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff's employer was a sophisticated user of asbestos-containing products and the employer's negligence in providing the product to its employees in a negligent, careless and reckless manner is a superseding cause of Plaintiff's injuries. 10 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 If Plaintiff has received, or in the future may receive, Workers' Compensation 12 benefits from Defendant under the Labor Code of the State of California as a 13 consequence of the alleged industrial injury referred to in the Complaint, and in the event Se ag e3 eg 14 that Defendant is held liable to Plaintiff, any award against Defendant must be reduced a2 g2 Eo 15 in the amount of all such benefits received by Plaintiff. 16 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 If Plaintiff has received, or in the future may receive, Workers' Compensation 18 benefits from Defendant under the Labor Code of the State of California as a 19 consequence of the alleged industrial injury referred to in the Complaint, and in the event 20 Plaintiff is awarded damages against Defendant, Defendant claims a credit against this 21 award to the extent that Defendant is barred from enforcing its rights to reimbursement 22 for Workers' Compensation benefits that Plaintiff have received or may in the future 23 receive. 24 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 lf Plaintiff has received, or in the future may receive Workers' Compensation 26 benefits from Defendant under the Labor Code of the State of California as a 27 consequence of the alleged industrial injury referred to in the Complaint, Defendant 28 demands repayment of any such Workers' Compensation benefits in the event that 73101,00102 3779441 -5- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Plaintiff recover 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 limitations or otherwise, Defendant asserts that cross-demands for money have existed between Plaintiff 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-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At all times and places in the Complaint, Plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Defendant and said lack of privity bars Plaintiff's recovery herein upon any theory of 10 warranty. 11 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 Plaintiff is barred from recovery in that all products produced by Defendant were 13 in conformity with the existing state-of-the-art, and as a result, these products were not Se Baeg2 $2 14 defective in any manner. Be ZeeSs BS 15 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Be 16 Defendant did not and does not have a substantial percentage of the market for 17 the asbestos-containing products which allegedly caused Plaintiff's injuries. Therefore, 18 Defendant may not be held liable to Plaintiff based on Defendant's alleged percentage 19 share of the applicable market. 20 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 Defendant denies any and all liability to the extent that Plaintiff asserts 22 Defendant's alleged liability as a successor, successor in business, successor in product 23 line or a portion thereof, assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in 24 product line or a portion thereof, parent, alter ego, equitable trustee, subsidiary, wholly or 25 partially owned by, or the whole or partial owner of or member in an entity researching, 26 studying, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, labeling, assembling, distributing, 27 leasing, buying, offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting for 28 installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, rebranding, manufacturing for others, 73101.00102 377944.1 -6- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT —_— packaging and advertising a certain substance, the generic name of which is asbestos or a product which contains asbestos. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant had no knowledge that any of the alleged activities of which Plaintiff complains, and which allegedly were conducted on premises owned by this Defendant, were unsafe or dangerous, and Defendant therefore did not have a duty to warn Plaintiff regarding any such alleged dangers. TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that it was under no legal duty to warn plaintiff of the hazards 10 associated with the use of products containing asbestos. Defendant further alleges that 11 the purchasers of said products, plaintiff's employer/s, his union/s or certain third parties 12 yet to be identified, were knowledgeable and sophisticated users and were in a better 13 position to warn plaintiff of the risks associated with using products containing asbestos Se ae 14 and, assuming a warning was required, it was the failure of such persons or entities to 22 g2 Ba 15 give such a warning that was the proximate and superseding cause of plaintiff's 16 damages, if any. 17 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 Defendant alleges that no conduct by or attributable to it was the cause in fact or 19 the proximate cause of the damages, if any, suffered by plaintiff, nor a substantial factor 20 in bringing about said damages. 21 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 Defendant alleges that its liability, if any, in this matter is extremely minor relative 23 to the liability of various third parties and, therefore, the damages, if any, assessed 24 against it should be proportionate to the degree, nature and extent of its fault. 25 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 Plaintiff herein has failed to join indispensable parties and the complaint is thereby 27 defective, and plaintiff is thereby precluded from any recovery whatsoever as prayed for 28 herein. 73101.00162 377944.1 -7- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT — THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that if plaintiff's claims were already litigated and resolved in any prior action, plaintiff's claims herein are barred based on the primary right and res judicata doctrines which prohibit splitting a single cause of action into successive suits, and seeking new recovery for injuries for which the plaintiff was previously compensated by alleged joint tortfeasors. THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 378 and 430.10(q), if it is determined that multiple plaintiffs have been listed on this complaint, then this defendant 10 contends the plaintiffs are misjoined. Because joinder is defective and improper, and 11 defendants will be prejudiced by having to proceed against different plaintiffs with 12 dissimilar cases, a single trial is unfair and a hardship, and separate trials on each 13 individual cause of action should be ordered. Se Bee BesE32 oe 14 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE aigge Za: zee Be BES 15 The matters alleged in this complaint are encompassed within and barred by a Be 16 settlement and release agreement reached by the parties which operates as a merger 17 and bar against any further litigation on matters raised or potentially raised in connection 18 with the settlement and release. 19 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 To the extent that plaintiff has previously filed a dismissal in court dismissing all of 21 its asserted claims, causes of action, and other theories of liability against this defendant 22 with prejudice, the matters alleged in this complaint are barred by retraxit. 23 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 To the extent that plaintiff has reached an accord with defendant regarding this 25 litigation and this accord was then properly satisfied, the claims, causes of action, 26 theories of liability and matters alleged in this complaint are barred by the doctrine of 27 accord and satisfaction. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays: 28 (1) That Plaintiff take nothing by his Complaint; 73101.00102 377944.1 -8- ANSWER TO 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 Workers’ Compensation benefits as alleged above, and 6) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: February2°, 2002 MORGENSTEIN & JUBELIRER LLP Bi DY “DAVID W. AMMONS Attorneys for Defendant 4520 CORP. 10 11 12 13 az Sg Bes53 14 Beg Bigge Zee aes BES 15 Be 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 73101,00102 377944.1 -9- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE |, IFFY MADUEWESI, declare: lam a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is One Market, Spear Street Tower, Thirty-Second Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105. On February 22, 2002, | caused to be served the within documents: ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY O by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. fx by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at San Francisco, California addressed as set forth below. 10 by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed 11 envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered toa agent for delivery. 12 13 O by causing the document(s) listed above to be personally delivered to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. ae BS¢ BesEe 14 Beg Bbs zeege SEE ATTACHED LIST Bez BES 15 Be | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 16 above is true and correct. 17 Executed on February2e 2002, at San Francisco, California. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 73101.00102 3779441 PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF SERVICE 213/556-2645 1608, Century City, CA 90067 Boyajian & Associates, 1888 Century Park East, Ste. 415/898-1555, 2109, Novato, CA 94948 Brayton-Purcell, 222 Rush Landing Road, P.O. Box Fax: 415/898-1247 707/224-6547 Bruce L. Ahnfeldt, Esq., P.O. Box 6078, Napa, CA 94581 Fax; 701/224-2518 619/238-1811 CA 92101 Casey, Gerry, Reed & Schenk, 110 Laurel St., San Diego, Fax: 619/544-9232 510/832-2980, Street, Oakland, CA 94612 Christopher E. Grell, The Broadlake Plaza, 360 22 Fax: 510/832-2986 925/938-9100 Creek, CA 94596 Collins & Schwartz, 1111 Civic Dr., Suite 240, Walnut 415/871-5669 Corey & Orton, 700 El Camino Real, Millbrae, CA 94030 408/244-5832, Crowley & Clark, 831 S. Winchester Bivd., San Jose, CA 95128 213/552-2121 CA 90067 Davis & Thomas, 1999 Ave. of the Stars, Ste. 2310, Los Angeles, 510/832-5409 Oakland, CA 94612 Digardi & Campbell, 436-14th St, 616 Central Bldg., 510/372-3304 ,035 CA 94556-1 aga George W. Kilbourne, Esq., 661 Augusta Drive, Mor 415/981-8855, ‘San Francisco, CA 94111 Goldstein & Phillips, One Embarcadero Center, 8th Fl., Avenue, Suite 900, Tucson, AZ 85701-1620 Haralson, Miller, Pitt & McAnally, P.C., One 'S. Church Harrison Kemp & Jones, 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway 17°, Las Vegas, NV 89109 415/788-2500 Herron & Herron, 600 Montgomery Street, 33rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 Thomas F. Byrne, Esq, 707/544-9006 Hinton, Byrne & ‘Cochran, 50 Old Courthouse Sq., Ste 601, Santa Rosa, CA 95404, Attn: Fax: 707/544-1213 415/543-9464 St., 18th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103 Hoberg, Finger, Brown, Cox & Molligan, 703 Market 925/757-1020 525 Hobin & Shingler, LLP, 1011 A Street, Antioch, CA 94509-2 Fax; 925/757-2633 707/455-2071 Drawer 1288, Eureka, CA 95501 Janssen, Malloy, Marchi, Needham & Morrison, P.O. 415/543-1111 San Francisco, CA 94105 Jarvis, Miller, Brodsky & Baskin, 221 Main St, Ste. 1001, 415/861-1886 San Francisco, CA 94102 John C. Smith, Fox Plaza, Suite 702, 1390 Market Street, 510/465-7728 CA 94607 Kazan, McClain, et al., 171 ‘Twelfth Street, Ste. 300, Oakland, Fax; 510/835-4913 714/851-1200 CA 92660 , Kenneth L. Knapp, 1109 Quail Street, Newport Beach Center, 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 Landye Bennett Blumstein, LLP, 3500 Wells Faro 619/238-1811 Law Offices of Dwight. Ritter, 170 Laurel Street, San Diego, CA 92101 619/544-9232 916/444-2622, Suite 600, Sacramento, CA 95821 Law Offices of EugeneC. Treaster, 3838 Watt Avenue, 415/332-4262 2330 Marinship Way, Suite 140, Sausalito, CA 94965 ‘Law Offices of JackK. Clapper, Marina Office Plaza, 415/331-5387 415/543-0770 San Francisco, CA 94105 Law Offices of Steven B. Stein, 150 Spear Street, Ste. 1800, Fax: 415/543-4332 213/627-0800 Angeles, CA 90071-2300 Lewis & Scholnick, 555 S. Flower Street, Suite 4520, Los Fax; 213/627-7262 415/391-1560 o, CA 94111 Mack, Hazetwood, Franecke& Tinney, 425 Battery Street, Suite 450, San Francisc 415/882-2992 San Francisco, CA 94105 ‘McCarthy, Johnson & Miller, 595 Market St., Ste. 2200, 213/395-9299 Monica, CA 90401 Moreno, Purcell & Schindler, 227 Broadway, Suite 200, Santa 2772, Boise, ID 83701 Nevin, Herzfeld & Benjamin, 303 W. Bannock, P.O. Box CA 90017 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3800, Los Angeles, Nordstrom, Steele, Nicholette, Blythe & Jefferson, 601 916/444-0321 das & Timmons, P.O. Box 965, Sacramento, CA 95812-0965 510/559-9980 CA 94804 Paul & Hanley, 4905 Central Aveaue, Suite 200, Richmond, 510/559-9970 510/234-8890 2090 23rd Street, Box 35, San Pablo, CA 94806 Pelletreau, Moses, Larson, Alderson & Jacobsmeyer, Revised 01/10/02, 22222.00001/334870.1 .— 97204 Preston Bunnell & Stone, LLP, 1100 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1405, Portland, Oregon Robert Fain, 10 N. 27* Street, Suite 320, P.O. Box 1018, Billings, MY 59103-1018 415/788-4220 Robert C. Schubert, Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1050, San Francisco, CA 94111 303/371-5944 Robles & Gonzales, One Bayfront Plaza, 100 Biscayne Bivd., Ste. 900, Miami, FL 33131 Rose, Klein & Marias, 801 S. Grand Avenue, 18" Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017-4645 90048 213/653-0211 Simke, Chodos, Silberfeld & Soll, Inc., 6300 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 9000, Los Angeles, CA 510/267-0500 Sterns & Walker, 901 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94607 Fax: 510/267-0506 415/441-1707 Visse & Yanez, 1375 Sutter Street, Suite 120, San Francisco, CA 94109 Fax: 415/441-2045 CA 94111 415/986-5566, Wartnick, Chaber, Harowitz, Smith & Tigerman, 101 California Street, 22 Floor, San Francisco, ‘Ward, Keenan & Barrett, 3030 N. 3% Street, Suite 930, Phoenix, AZ 85012 * Waters & Kraus, LLP, 200 Oceangate, Suite 520, Long Beach, CA 90802 94063 415/365-7333 Wilhelm, Thompson, Wentholt & Gibbs, 702 Marshall Street, Suite 510, Redwood City, CA 415/882-4500 William C. Gordon, Esq., 58 Second St., 3rd Fl., San Francisco, CA 94105 303/442-0173 Williams, Trine, et al., J. Conard Metcalf, 1435 Arapahoe Ave., Boulder, CO 80302-6390 Fax: 303/443-7677 Wright Tolliver & Guthals, Windoor Court, 10 N. 27® Street, P.O. Box 1977 Revised 01/10/02 22222.00001/334870.1 CO-DEFENDANTS PROOF OF SERVICE (CASE NAME: 16" joor, San 415/905-0200 bex Corp/Pneumo Abex Corp. - McQuaid, Metzler, McCormick & Van Zandt, 221 Main Street, Fax: 415/905-0202 Francisco, CA 94111 510/433-2600 Ace Hardware Corp. - Lombardi, Loper & Conant, 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1950, Oakland, CA 94612 Fax 510/433-2699 ~The St. Peter Law Group, 20 California Street, 7 Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 415/955-0700 ACandS Fax: 415/955-0711 CandS/A&A ilding Mat Co. - Prindle, Decker & Amarro, 310 Golden Shore Street, 4 Floc:, Long Beach, 562/436-3946 CA 90802 Fax: 562/495-0564 erojet General Corp. - Bailey & Brown, 1419 21st Street, Sacramento, CA 95825 City, 650/592-5400 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. ~ Coddington, Hicks & Danford, 555 Twin Dolphin Dr., Suite 300, Redwood CA 94066 Fax: 650/592-5027 fedical alifor cificMe minican Santa Hospital/Rideout 510/465-3922 Ita Bat ‘General Hospital/Sutter Memorial Hospital— Rankin, a & Pollack, Fax: 510/452-3006 ‘Hospita/Summit Medical, eae 1800 Harrison Street, Suite 1616, Oakland, CCA 94604 Alta Buildi . Cor Hardin, Cook, Loper, Engel & Bergez, 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor, 510/444-3131 510/839-7940 Oakland,CA 94612-3541 Roche, 333 Bush Street, 18th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104 415/296-0333 Amer. Brake - Sullivan, std JW yhouse_ ir Bake Co/E. J. Bartels Paetzold, White & Brodsky, 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 510/267-0112 330, Oakland, CA 94612-3741 Fax: 510/267-0113 merican Asbestos — Mr. Ray Colman, American Asbestos Company, P.O. Box 981, Petaluma, CA 94953 Roach & 510/763-2000 Motors Corp/Chrysler Corp/Bridgestone/Lear Siegler/Worldbestos/Royal Ind. - Crosby, Heafey, May, 1999 Harrison St. Oakland, CA 94612 818/584-6968 mer. Mot . - Law Offices of Raymond G. Kolts, The Walnut Plaza, 3rd Floor, 215 North Marengo Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91101 yn — McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, Three Embarcadero Center, 415/393-2000 Amer. Pres. Lines/C&H Sugar/Domtar/Mat 28th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 94111 CA o, 415/434-4914 Amer. Optical/Charter Consol. - Sheppard, Mullia, 4 Embarcadero, 17thFl., San Francisc 415/392-5528 A Optical — Law Offices of Gary J. Nevolo, One Maritime Plaza, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94111 415/392-5828 Fax: 415/837-1515 metek, Inc. - Allen, Matkins, Leck, et al., 333 Bursh Street, 17* Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104 415/837-1516 (Los Angeles) - Lewis, D'Amato, Five Park, 261 So. Figueroa St., #300, Los Angeles, CA 90012 mer, Std. CA 94111 415/986-2800 Amfac Distbr/Oakland Shtmtl, He - Folger & Levin, Attn: Doug Sullivan, 275 Battery, San Francisco, Fax: 415/986-2827 925/296-2600 Anheuser-Busch, Inc. - Fleming & Phillips, 1340 Treat Bivd., Suite 630, ‘Walnut Creek, CA 94596-2101 925/296-2626 nchor Pkg/Garlock/Colt Ind. ~ Glaspy& Glaspy, 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 750, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 9251947-1300 9251947-1594 Suite 618, Pasadena, CA 91101 626/568-0834 Anchor Packing Co/Garlock — Baronian Law Firm, 301 East Colorado Blvd., Fax: 6261564-6018 Bivd., #250, 9251944-5550 sbestos Corp/Atlas Turner/Bell Asb./Wagner Elec. ~ Stevens, Drummond & Gifford, 1910 Olympic Fax; 925/256-9669 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 415/537-3930 A.W..Chesterton Co/Durametallic/Simpson Paper Company/Reliable Building Materials Imai, Tadlock & Keeney, 185 Berry Street, San Francisco, CA 94107 ~ Fax; 415/537-3938 9251943-6383 Bal & Wilcox/MéDermott -’ Anderson, Galloway, 1676 No. California Blvd., Suite 50, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Fax 9251943-7542 415/981-6630 ank ofAt ica/Moore. Dock/Thot son Buildir faterials, Inc. - Low, Ball & Lynch, 601 California Street, 415/982-1634 San Francisco, CA 94108-2898