On February 26, 2019 a Party Discovery was filed involving a dispute between Torres, Christopher, Torres, Melissa, and Barnes Group Inc., As Successor By Acquisition Of Kar Products, Inc., A, Barnes Group Inc. As Successor By Acquisition Of Kar Products,Llc, B C Stocking Distributing, A California Corporation, B'Laster Llc, Chevron Corporation, A Delaware Corporation, Chevron U.S.A. Inc, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Crc Industries, Inc. Which Will Do Businessin California As Pennsylvania Crc Industrie, Dap Products Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Does 3-100, Husqvarna Professional Products, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Kern Oil & Refining Co., A California Corporation, Lighthouse For The Blind, Midwest Motor Supply Co., An Ohio Corporation, Nch Corporation, A Delaware Corporation, Oatey Co., An Ohio Corporation, Pennzoil-Quaker State Company, Petro Source Investments, Inc. A Delaware Corporation, Ppg Industries, Inc. A Pennsylvania Corporation, P-T Technologies, Inc., A Florida Corporation, Quaker State Corporation, As Successor By Acquistion Of Westland Oil Company, Inc., A, Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., A Wisconsin Corporation, Union Oil Company Of California, A California Corporation, Wd-40 Company, A Delaware Corporation, for Product Liability Unlimited in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
lWPlCases115151PLEADM071STRIKE10pp to DAP ProductsMTS wpd 1 METZGER LAW GROUP a N A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION y j a Xm 2 RAPHAEL METZGER ESQ SBN 116020 L SUPERl012 CJUR7 OF CAUFORNIA G rni a o FRYE OF O MONICA L SBN 210183 a N ESQ COA NB p RDC N X 3 401 E OCEAN BLVD SUITE 800 N LONG BEACH CA 90802 4966 V N APR 17 ZG1 W W W 3 4 TELEPH ONE 5 62 43 7 44 9 9 3 TELECOPIER 562 436 1561 d w EY c J 5 PA ti F1 s ST o W r I AAE Attorneys for Plaintiffs F 6 CHRISTOPHER TORRES and MELISSA TORRES 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT CIVIL 9 10 0 zoo W a 11 CHRISTOPHER TORRES and MELISSA CASE NO CIVDS1906092 TORRES wa 0 12 Re Assigned to Honorable Bryan F Foster pNo Plaintiffs Dept S22 4 F z 13 a o vs PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF o m4 14 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 4 Z z o BARNES GROUP INC as successor by OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DAP W 15 acquisition of Kar Products Inc a Delaware PRODUCTS INC S MOTION TO J Q o W corporation S TRI KE P O RT IO N S O F P L A INTI FFS oN m 16 B C STOCKING DISTRIBUTING aCalifornia COMPLAINT a W z corporation CHEVRON CORPORATION a 4 17 Delaware corporation CRC INDUSTRIES DATE Apri130 2019 a WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN TIME 8 30 a m INC 18 CALIFORNIA AS PENNSYLVANIA CRC DEPT S22 INDUSTRIES INC a Pennsylvania 19 corporation DAP PRODUCTS INC a Delaware corporation et al 20 Defendants 21 Z N 22 U Z J J l X a 23 zu Z Fx W Jo 24 Q o Q z ZZa z WW 25 uZ W Z JZ 26 ZQ Zo WW aw u a a 27 a u Q o uN u a oo 2g PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DAP PRODUCTS INC S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT 1WP1Cases115151PLEADMOTISTRIKE10pp to DAP Products MTS wpd 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 0 ao u a x m PAGE 2 d do INTRODUCTION 1 N mNo X 3 I N H 4 II ARGUMENT 1 Z a 3 oLLo3 u Plaintiffs Have Allegations for Punitive Damages 1 W o W 5 A Properly Pled W F 6 1 General Allegations of Fraud Malice or Oppression Accompanied with Supporting Factual Allegations Suffice to State a Claim for 7 Punitive Damages 2 8 2 A Plaintiff May Plead a Punitive Damage Claim Against a Chemical Manufacturer Even If He Only Fears He May Develop Cancer from 9 a Toxic Exposure 4 10 3 Plaintiffs Allegations State a Claim for Punitive Damages under California Appellate Toxic Cases 4 z o o c Injury wa 11 0 4 California Decisions in Traumatic Injury Cases Also Show That 12 Plaintiffs Punitive Damage Allegations Are Adequate 7 o 0 oNo 13 5 Plaintiffs Allegation That Defendant Concealed Toxic Hazards from W U 3W q J O Them Is a Sufficient Allegation to Overcome a Motion to Strike o ma 14 Punitive Damages 7 15 6 Plaintiffs Are Not Obligated to Plead Facts That Are Presumptively a Within Defendant Own Knowledge 8 Q W o 4 s oNm 16 a W Z 7 Plaintiffs Are Not Required to Prove Entitlement to Recovery of o 17 Punitive Damages in the Complaint 9 a 18 8 Because Plaintiffs May Recover Punitive Damages Even in the Absence of Punitive Damage Allegations the Prayer for Punitive Damages Should 19 NotBe Stricken 9 20 B Bockrath Does Not Prohibit Plaintiffs from Informing Defendant in Their Complaint That Other Injury causing Products and Other Toxins Contained in Z1 These Products May Be Identified During Further Discovery in this Action 10 Z N W 22 III CONCLUSION 13 U Z X J 7 Z 23 Q Z Z f X o Z 24 fW J Q Q O Z WWa z 25 uZ W Z JZ 26 Za z p u w W 27 waW F a N Q u Q U W N O a o 0 20 1 PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DAP PRODUCTS INC S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT