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
IOUT San Francisco Superior Courts Information Technology Group Document Scanning Lead Sheet Feb-06-2002 1:35 pm Case Number: CGC-01-402113 Filing Date: Feb-06-2002 1:34 Juke Box: 001 Image: 00357416 ANSWER JAMES JORDAN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC) 001000357416 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be sca FI MICHAEL T. LUCEY (SBN: 99927) oak cestencD S. MITCHELL KAPLAN (SBN: 96065) ec THOMAS A. PACKER (SBN: 104767) GORDON & REES, LLP C2 FEB -~G Cy mr Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Twentieth Floor Ce San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Gina Gonzaieq Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 —— ft at Attorneys for Defendant HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a/ ALLIEDSIGNAL Inc., as Successor in interest to the BENDIX CORPORATION 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 11 bi JAMES JORDAN, CASE NO. 402113 $6 A2ces 12 She Plaintiff, SUMMARY ANSWER OF BZ cers 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 [ BEN(0007807258171.1 Summary Answer of Honeywe ll Internati onal Inc. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a fifth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, SvI alleges that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue SvI. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a sixth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, SVI alleges that Plaintiff was negligent and unreasonable in or about the things alleged in the Complaint, which conduct actually and 10 proximately caused all or part of Plaintiff's claimed injuries and 11 damages, if any. Any damages which Plaintiff seeks to recover 12 from SVI must be reduced in Proportion to the extent that 13 Plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the claimed injuries or 14 damages. 15 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 As a seventh separate and distinct affirmative defense to the 17 entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, SVI alleges 18 that all or part of Plaintiff's injuries or damages, if any, were 19 actually and proximately caused by the conduct of third parties, 20 and not SVI. 21 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 As a eighth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the 23 entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, SvI alleges 24 that Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable diligence in 25 mitigating the damages allegedly Sustained as a result of the 26 alleged acts of SVI. 27 /// 28 S// THELEN REID SF #630554 v1 DRFE SEQUO ND IA AN -3- & PRIEST LLP VENTUREST INC'S ANSWER 5S COMPIATET FOR PERSONAL INJURY REBESTOR ATTORNEYS AT LAW —. — NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As an ninth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, svi alleges that at all times mentioned, Plaintiff had knowledge of the risks of the matters set forth in the Complaint, as well as the magnitude of the risks, and thereafter, knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily assumed those risks. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a tenth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the 10 entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, SVI is 11 informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Plaintiff 12 claims workers’ compensation benefits from one or more of 13 Plaintiff's employers or the employers’ insurance carriers, and 14 that any award of damages, judgment or settlement in favor of 15 Plaintiff against svi should be reduced by the amount paid, or to 16 be paid in the future, by those employers or their workers’ 17 compensation carrier(s). 18 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 As a eleventh Separate and distinct affirmative defense to 20 the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, svr 21 alleges that the entire Complaint, and each cause of action 22 thereof, is barred against SVI by the Provisions of section 3601, 23 et seg., of the California Labor Code. 24 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 As an twelfth separate and distinct affirmative defense to 26 the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, SVI 27 alleges that the entire Complaint, and each cause of action 28 thereof, is barred because the and products materials, which SF #630554 v1 THELEN REID DEFENDANT GEQUOTX VENTURES TNC.7G ANSWE -4- & PRIEST LLP R TO COMPLATNT FON PERSGUAL ERAT ATTORNEYS AT Law ‘ASBESTOS ~ Plaintiff alleges caused the alleged injuries and damages, conformed to specifications and plans promulgated and approved by the United States Government . THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a thirteenth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action thereof, SVI alleges that the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state a cause of action against SVI because the federal government has preempted the field of law applicable to the products alleged 10 to have caused Plaintiff’s injuries, or the claims forming the 11 basis for relief. The granting of the relief prayed for in the 12 Complaint would impede, impair, frustrate and/or burden the 13 effectiveness of federal law regulating the field and would 14 violate the Supremacy Clause contained in Article VI, Clause 2 of 15 the United States Constitution. 16 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 As a fourteenth separate and distinct affirmative defense to 18 the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, svr 19 alleges that any danger or defect on the premises was obvious or 20 could have been observed by Plaintiff's exercise of reasonable 21 care. 22 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 As a fifteenth separate and distinct affirmative defense to 24 the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, svr 25 alleges that if Plaintiff sustained injuries or damages 26 attributable to the use of any product researched, tested, 27 studied, manufactured, fabricated, inadequately researched, 28 designed, inadequately tested, labeled, assembled, distributed, THELEN REID SF #630554 vi DEFE -5- & PRIEST LLP SEQUO ND IA AN VENTURESTENC. "6 ANWER TO COMPLAINT FOR ‘PERINJUR SO Y NA - ASBELSTOS ATTORNEYS AT Law -- _— leased, bought, offered for sale, sold, inspected, serviced, installed, contracted for installation, repaired, marketed, warranted, arranged, rebranded, manufactured for others, packaged, advertised and/or which contained or lacked warnings by SVI, which allegations are expressly denied, the injuries or damages were proximately caused by the unreasonable and unforeseeable misuse, abuse, alteration, or improper maintenance of the product by Plaintiff or by others. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 As a sixteenth separate and distinct affirmative defense to qi the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, svz 12 alleges that all products and materials researched, tested, 13 studied, manufactured, fabricated, inadequately researched, 14 designed, inadequately tested, labeled, assembled, distributed, 15 leased, bought, offered for sale, sold, inspected, serviced, 16 installed, contracted for installation, repaired, marketed, 17 warranted, arranged, rebranded, manufactured for others, packaged, 18 advertised , and/or which contained or lacked warnings by SVI were 19 not defective in any manner as said products and materials 20 conformed with the state-of the art in existence at all times 21 mentioned in the Complaint. 22 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 AS a seventeenth separate and distinct affirmative defense to 24 the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, svr 25 alleges that the State of medical and scientific knowledge and 26 published literature and materials reflecting such state of 27 medical and scientific knowledge, at all times pertinent hereto, 28 was such that SVI neither knew, nor could have known, that the SF #630554 vi THELEN REID -6- DEFE BEQUO ND IK AN VENTUREGT INC.”S ANEWEN TO COMPLAIN & PRIEST LLP FOR PERSONAL INJURY ~ ASBESTOS ATTORNEYS AT Law products in issue presented a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff in the normal and expected use of said products. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a eighteenth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire Complaint and each cause of action thereof, SVI alleges that the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred on the grounds that the products or materials referred to in the Complaint, if any, were not a substantial factor in bringing about the injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiff. 10 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 As a nineteenth separate and distinct affirmative defense to 12 the entire, Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, svz 13 alleges that the entire Complaint, and each cause of action 14 thereof, is barred against SVI by the doctrine of waiver. 15 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 As a twentieth separate and distinct affirmative defense to 17 the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, SVI 18 alleges that any defect or danger on the premises was trivial. 19 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 As a twenty-first separate and distinct affirmative defense 21 to the entire Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, svr 22 alleges that Plaintiff has improperly split the causes of action 23 and seeks to maintain a duplicative lawsuit based on the same 24 facts and circumstances as a lawsuit Previously filed. 25 TWENTY-~SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 As a twenty-second separate and distinct affirmative defense 27 to the entire complaint, and each cause of action thereof, 28 defendant alleges that Plaintiff's complaint fails to state facts SF #630554 THELEN REID vi DEFENDANT GEQUOIA VENTURES INC ‘® ANGWE -7- & PRIEST LLP R TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INTORY 7 ai ATTORNEYS AT Law. TOs sufficient to entitle Plaintiff to an award of punitive or exemplary damages against defendant. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a twenty-third separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and each cause of action thereof, defendant alleges that plaintiff is not entitled to an award of punitive or exemplary damages in this action. Such an award would be unconstitutional unless defendant is accorded the safeguards provided under the Constitution of the State of California and the 10 Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the qi United States Constitution. 12 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 As a twenty-fourth separate and distinct affirmative defense 14 to the entire complaint, and each cause of action thereof, 15 defendant alleges that to the extent plaintiff's claims arise out 16 of contract, Plaintiff’s claims do not state facts sufficient to 17 entitle plaintiff to an award of punitive or exemplary damages 18 against defendant. 19 WHEREFORE, SVI prays for judgment as follows: 20 1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by way of the Complaint; 21 2 That the present action be dismissed with prejudice; 22 3 That the court enter judgment in favor of SVI and 23 against Plaintiff on each claim for relief; 24 4 That an apportionment of fault be made among all 25 parties, anda judgment, and declaration of Partial 26 indemnification and contribution be made against all other parties 27 or persons in accordance with the apportionment of fault; 28 5 For attorneys’ fees as allowed by law; THELEN REID SF_ #630554 v1 -8- DEFENDANT SEQUOTA VENTURES INC.”S ANSWER & PRIEST LLP TO COMPLAINT VOR FERSGHAL GRR ‘ASBESTOS ATTORNEYS AT Law a - ~~ 1 6 For costs of suit; and 2 7 For such other and further relief as this Court may deem 3 just and proper. Dated: 2002 THELEN REID & PRIEST LLP By. At neys for Defendant SEQUOIA VENTURES INC. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THELEN REID SF #630554 v1 ~9- DEFENDANT SEQUOIA VENTURES INC "8 ANGWE & PRIEST LLP R 70 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL ENSURY > ATTORNEYS AT Law ‘ASBESTOS ee —_— PROOF OF SERVICE CASE: JAMES JORDAN v. ASBESTOS DEFEND ANTS CASE No.: 402113 I, Shelly K. Wetherington, am employed in the City and Coun ty of San Francisco, Califo. rnia, I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my bu: address is 101 Second Street, #1800, San Franci: isco, California 94105. On FEBRUARY 2002, I served the following document: ty * DEFENDANT SEQUOIA VENTURES INC. ’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT by placing true copies thereof in seal led enve lopes addressed and designated for service below: as listed i By First Class Mail - I caused each such envelope, with aid, to be deposited in a recognized place California, for collection and mailing to fi irst-class postage thereon fully of deposit of the U -S. mail in San Francisco, the office of the address ‘ee on the date show n herein following ordinary business practices. __ By Personal Service - I caused each such envelope to be delivere by this law firm, with whom d to a courier employed we have a direct billing account, who pers such envelope to the office o: f the addr onally delivered each essee on the date last written below. ADDRESSEE: BRAYTON PURCELL 222 Rush Landing Road P.O. Box 2109 Novato, CA 94948 B I declai r¢ under penalty of perjury that the fore; going is true and correct. Exe FEBRUARY » 2002 at San Francisco, Californi cuted SMA Shelly K. Wetherington Legal Assistant SF #517667 v1