Preview
1 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
JOSEPH DUFFY, Bar No. 241854
2 joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com
AMY J. TALARICO, Bar No. 209112 ELECTRONICALLY
3 amy.talarico@morganlewis.com FILED
MARISA R. CHAVES, Bar No. 236533 Superior Court of California,
4 marisa.chaves@morganlewis.com County of San Francisco
One Market 06/17/2020
5 Spear Street Tower Clerk of the Court
San Francisco, California 94105-1596 BY: BOWMAN LIU
6 Telephone: +1.415.442.1000 Deputy Clerk
Facsimile: +1.415.442.1001
7
Attorneys for Defendant
8 GOULDS PUMPS, INC. now known as GOULDS
PUMPS LLC
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
12
13
14 GERALD FALLS, Case No. CGC20276836
15 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC.
NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS
16 vs. LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
17 CRANE CO., et al., INJURY - ASBESTOS
18 Defendants. Complaint Filed: May 6, 2020
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS
DB2/ 39127406.1
1 GOULDS PUMPS LLC (“Defendant” or “GOULDS PUMPS”), answers Plaintiff’s
2 Complaint for Personal Injury – Asbestos (“Complaint”) as follows:
3 Under the provisions of Section 431.30(d), California Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant
4 denies each and every allegation of Plaintiff’s Complaint and the whole thereof, and denies that
5 Plaintiff has been damaged in any sum or amount whatsoever, or at all.
6 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each of its purported causes of action alleged therein fail to state
8 facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant.
9 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the
11 applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to, Code of Civil Procedure sections
12 337.15, 340.2, 343 and 361, and California Commercial Code section 2725.
13 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 Plaintiff is barred from recovery herein by virtue of the application of the Doctrine of
15 Laches (inexcusable delay and prejudice to Defendant).
16 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the
18 equitable Doctrine of Unclean Hands.
19 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the
21 equitable Doctrine of Waiver.
22 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the
24 equitable Doctrine of Estoppel.
25 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of any then-existing conditions alleged in the
27 Complaint with full knowledge thereof, thereby proximately causing the injuries and damages, if
28 any, complained of by Plaintiff is thereby barred from recovery herein.
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP -2-
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS
DB2/ 39127406.1
1 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 Plaintiff acknowledged, ratified, consented to, and/or acquiesced in the alleged acts or
3 omissions, if any, of this Defendant, thus barring Plaintiff from any relief as prayed for herein.
4 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 Plaintiff was advised, informed, and/or warned of any potential hazards and/or dangers, if
6 there were any, associated with the normal or foreseeable use, handling, and storage of the
7 products, substances, and/or equipment described in the Complaint.
8 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 If Defendant provided the products alleged to have been defective, and without admitting
10 that it did so or that any product was defective, Defendant provided such products to distributors
11 or other intermediaries, including Plaintiff’s employers, who were knowledgeable, informed and
12 sophisticated concerning the use of the products and the alleged risks to the health of ultimate
13 users, such as Plaintiff, from the use of the products.
14 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred under Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., (2008)
16 43 Cal. 4th 56, because Plaintiff and/or his employers are sophisticated users.
17 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 No conduct by or attributable to Defendant was the cause in fact or the proximate cause of
19 the damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiff, nor a substantial factor in bringing about said
20 damages.
21 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 Any exposure of Plaintiff to Defendant’s products was so minimal as to be insufficient to
23 establish by a reasonable degree of probability that any such product caused any alleged injury,
24 damage, or loss to Plaintiff.
25 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 This Defendant’s products were not a substantial factor in bringing about the injuries and
27 damages complained of by Plaintiff, and, therefore, Defendant may not be held liable to Plaintiff
28 as alleged.
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP -3-
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS
DB2/ 39127406.1
1 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 That any and all events and happenings in connection with the allegations contained in
3 Plaintiff’s Complaint and the resulting injuries and damages, if any, referred to therein, were
4 proximately caused and contributed to by the negligence of the Plaintiff, thereby barring or
5 reducing Plaintiff’s recovery herein.
6 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 Any loss, injury or damage to Plaintiff was proximately caused or contributed to by the
8 negligent or other tortious acts, omissions, conduct, or products of persons, entities or parties
9 other than Defendant, and that each, any, and all damages recoverable by Plaintiff must be
10 diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to said other persons, entities or
11 parties, and there must be apportioned among all such persons, entities, and parties the amount of
12 damages attributed to them as an offset against damages, if any, awarded against Defendant.
13 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 Any loss, injury, or damage, if any, incurred by Plaintiff was the result of superseding or
15 intervening causes arising from the negligent or willful acts or omissions of other parties which
16 Defendant neither controlled nor had the right to control, and that said loss, injury or damage was
17 not proximately or legally caused by any act, omission, or other conduct of Defendant.
18 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 If Plaintiff sustained any injury or illness attributable to the use of any products and/or
20 equipment manufactured, sold, or supplied by Defendant, which allegations are expressly denied,
21 the injuries were solely caused by and attributable to the unreasonable and improper use which
22 was made of said products and/or equipment, and each of them, by other persons, entities, or
23 parties whom Defendant neither controlled nor had the right to control.
24 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 The product(s) involved was materially altered or changed by a party or parties other than
26 and without the permission of Defendant, its employees, servants, or other agents, and such
27 alteration or change created the alleged defect, if any, which was the proximate or legal cause of
28 Plaintiff’s injuries or damages, if any.
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP -4-
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS
DB2/ 39127406.1
1 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 The state of the medical, scientific, and industrial knowledge and practice was at all
3 material times such that Defendant neither breached any alleged duty owed Plaintiff, nor knew,
4 nor could have known, that its products presented a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff in the
5 normal and expected use of such products.
6 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 Any products, substances, and/or equipment manufactured, formulated, sold or supplied
8 by Defendant were made consistent with the state of the art and all health and safety statutes and
9 regulations applicable to said products, substances, and/or equipment at the time of their
10 manufacture, sale, formulation, or supply.
11 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 The products, substances, and/or equipment referred to in the Complaint were properly
13 designed and manufactured, and safe for the purpose intended. Said products, substances, and/or
14 equipment were modified, altered, misused, abused, and/or improperly maintained by Plaintiff or
15 others, and said conduct was not reasonably foreseeable to Defendant and proximately caused or
16 contributed to the injuries, losses, and damages complained of, if any, thus barring Plaintiff’s
17 recovery herein.
18 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 The asbestos-containing products, if any, for which Defendant had legal responsibility
20 were installed, labeled, assembled, serviced, supplied, manufactured, designed, packaged,
21 supplied, marketed, and/or sold in accordance with contract specifications imposed by its co-
22 defendants, by the U.S. Government, by Plaintiff’s employers, and/or by third parties yet to be
23 identified.
24 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred under
26 the government contractor defense.
27 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
28 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein, which are admittedly based
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP -5-
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS
DB2/ 39127406.1
1 upon a lack of identification of the manufacturer(s) and/or supplier(s) of the alleged injury-
2 causing product(s), fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that Plaintiff has
3 asserted a claim for relief which, if granted, would contravene Defendant’s constitutional rights to
4 substantive and procedural due process of law as preserved for Defendant by the Fourteenth
5 Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article I section 7, of the Constitution of the
6 State of California.
7 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred under O’Neil v. Crane Co., (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335
9 and Taylor v. Elliot Turbomachinery Co., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564, among other cases,
10 because Plaintiff has not pleaded and cannot show that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-
11 containing products that were manufactured, sold or supplied by Defendant or that were original
12 to any equipment alleged to be manufactured, sold or supplied by Defendant.
13 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, if any, in that they failed to use reasonable
15 diligence in caring for Plaintiff’s injuries and reasonable means to prevent their aggravation or to
16 accomplish their healing.
17 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 Plaintiff failed to give Defendant reasonably prompt notice of the breaches of warranty, if
19 any, alleged in the Complaint.
20 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 Plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Defendant and said lack of privity bars
22 Plaintiff’s recovery herein upon any theory of warranty.
23 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 Plaintiff herein has failed to join indispensable parties (California Code of Civil Procedure
25 section 389) such that the Complaint is defective, and Plaintiff is thereby precluded from any
26 recovery whatsoever as prayed for herein.
27 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
28 To the extent the Complaint asserts Defendant’s alleged “alternative,” “market share,” or
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP -6-
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS
DB2/ 39127406.1
1 “enterprise” liability, the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
2 against Defendant.
3 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein fail to state facts sufficient
5 to constitute a cause of action against Defendant in that Plaintiff has failed to join a substantial
6 market share of the producers of the product or products to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed.
7 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 Defendant did not and does not have a substantial percentage of the market for the
9 asbestos-containing products that allegedly caused Plaintiff’s injuries. Therefore, Defendant may
10 not be held liable to Plaintiff based on Defendant’s alleged percentage share of the applicable
11 market.
12 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 Plaintiff has no standing or right to sue for fraud and conspiracy, breach of warranty,
14 deceit, or any cause of action under California Civil Code sections 1708-1710, and therefore each
15 such cause of action in the Complaint, if any, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
16 action against this Defendant.
17 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 Fraud and conspiracy do not constitute a separate and distinct form of damages from
19 general damages. Therefore, the prayer for fraud and conspiracy in addition to general damages
20 does not sufficiently support or constitute a separate claim for damages against this Defendant,
21 but is simply cumulative and included in general damages.
22 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 Plaintiff’s alleged cause of action seeking punitive damages against Defendant, if any,
24 does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this Defendant.
25 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 Plaintiff’s claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, is barred by the due process
27 clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
28 ///
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP -7-
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS
DB2/ 39127406.1
1 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 Plaintiff’s claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, is barred by the Eighth
3 Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth
4 Amendment, prohibiting the imposition of excessive fines.
5 THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 Plaintiff’s claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, is barred by the “double
7 jeopardy” clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the
8 States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
9 FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 To the extent that these words purportedly apply to Defendant, which Defendant denies,
11 the Complaint does not state sufficient facts constituting “fraud,” “oppression,” or “malice,” as
12 these terms are used in California Civil Code section 3294.
13 FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 Defendant alleges that California Civil Code Section 3294, et seq. violates the California
15 and/or the United States Constitutions because, among other things, it violates the due process
16 clauses and the equal protection clauses thereof, respectively; it is void because it is vague and
17 ambiguous; it constitutes an undue burden on interstate commerce; and it violates the Eighth
18 Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that, therefore, Plaintiff is barred from any
19 recovery thereunder.
20 FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 If Defendant is responsible to Plaintiff, which responsibility is expressly denied,
22 Defendant shall be liable to Plaintiff only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to
23 each defendant in direct proportion to each defendant’s percentage of fault, if any. (California
24 Civil Code sections 1431, et seq.).
25 FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 As between Plaintiff and Defendant, the law applicable to this action is the law as it
27 existed during the period Defendant engaged, if at all, in the manufacture, sale, or supply of
28 asbestos-containing products to which the Plaintiff claim exposure. It is unlawful, inequitable,
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP -8-
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS
DB2/ 39127406.1
1 and in violation of Defendant’s contractual, statutory, and constitutional rights to apply principles
2 of law other than or in a manner different from those which existed for the period in which
3 Defendant manufactured, sold, or supplied products to which Plaintiff claim exposure.
4 FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 Defendant denies any and all liability to the extent that Plaintiff asserts Defendant’s
6 alleged liability as a successor-in-interest, successor-in-business, successor-in-product line, or a
7 portion thereof; assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in product line, or a
8 portion thereof; parent, alter ego, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial
9 owner of or member in an entity researching, studying, manufacturing, fabricating, designing,
10 labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing,
11 installing, contracting, or installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, re-branding,
12 manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising a certain substance, the generic name of
13 which is asbestos.
14 FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged in the Complaint
16 because the Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein against Defendant are
17 barred by the provisions of California Labor Code sections 3600, et seq.
18 FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 At the time and place of the happening of the occurrences and injuries alleged in the
20 Complaint, and all times material thereto, Plaintiff was employed by various employers, the
21 names of which are unknown to this Defendant, and working within the course and scope of their
22 employment. Said employers and Plaintiff were subject to the provisions of the Workers’
23 Compensation Act of the State of California and Plaintiff was entitled to receive Workers’
24 Compensation benefits from his employers. Certain sums have been paid to or on behalf of
25 Plaintiff herein under the applicable provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California. Said
26 employers and each of them were negligent, careless, and at fault in and about the matters
27 referred to in the Complaint and such negligence, carelessness, and fault proximately and
28 concurrently contributed to and caused the happening of the incidents complained of by Plaintiff,
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP -9-
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS
DB2/ 39127406.1
1 if there were any. By these premises, any judgment rendered in favor of Plaintiff herein must be
2 reduced by any benefits or payments made or to be made to Plaintiff by Plaintiff’s employers or
3 their compensation carrier(s) under Witt vs. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57 [17 Cal.Rptr. 369, 360
4 P.2d 641].
5 FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 Plaintiff has received, or in the future may receive, Workers’ Compensation benefits from
7 Defendant under the Labor Code of the State of California as a consequence of the alleged
8 industrial injury referred to in the Complaint, and, in the event Plaintiff is awarded damages
9 against Defendant, Defendant claims a credit against this award to the extent that Defendant is
10 barred from enforcing its rights to reimbursement for Workers’ Compensation benefits that
11 Plaintiff has received or may in the future receive.
12 Each denial of Plaintiff’s allegations, together with each of Defendant’s allegations,
13 defenses and factual contentions, all as set forth herein, are hereby specifically identified as
14 denials, allegations, defenses and factual contentions subject to reasonable opportunity for further
15 investigation and discovery, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(3)(4).
16 WHEREFORE, this Defendant prays that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed and that
17 Plaintiff takes nothing by virtue of this Complaint on file herein, for its costs of suit herein
18 incurred, for appropriate credits and setoffs arising out of any payment of Workers’
19 Compensation benefits alleged herein, and for any other and further relief as the Court
20 may deem proper.
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP - 10 -
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS
DB2/ 39127406.1
1 Dated: June 17, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
2 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
3
4 By
Marisa R. Chaves
5 One Market
Spear Street Tower
6 San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
+1.415.442.1000
7 SBN 236533
8 Attorneys for Defendant
GOULDS PUMPS, INC. now known as
9 GOULDS PUMPS LLC
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP - 11 -
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS
DB2/ 39127406.1
1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
2 Gerald Falls v. Crane Co., et al.
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-20-276836
3
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California and employed
4 in the County of San Francisco, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to
the within-entitled action. My business address is One Market, Spear Street Tower, San
5 Francisco, CA 94105-1596.
6 On June 17, 2020, I served a copy of the within documents:
7 DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS
GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
8 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS
9 BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Pursuant to San Francisco Court General Order
No. 158, CCP 1010.6 and CRC 2.251, or pursuant to the Stipulation and Order
10 Authorizing Electronic Service, or by an agreement of the parties, at approximately 4:30
p.m. I electronically e-served through File & ServeXpress and caused the document to be
11 sent to the persons at the email addresses designated on the Transaction Receipt located
on the File & ServeXpress website. To the best of my knowledge, at the time of the
12 transmission, the transmission was reported as complete and without error.
13
14 Executed on June 17, 2020, at San Francisco, California.
15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct.
16
17
18 Faye Genevieve Miranda
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
DB2/ 39127406.1
Preview
1 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP JOSEPH DUFFY, Bar No. 241854 2 joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com AMY J. TALARICO, Bar No. 209112 ELECTRONICALLY 3 amy.talarico@morganlewis.com FILED MARISA R. CHAVES, Bar No. 236533 Superior Court of California, 4 marisa.chaves@morganlewis.com County of San Francisco One Market 06/17/2020 5 Spear Street Tower Clerk of the Court San Francisco, California 94105-1596 BY: BOWMAN LIU 6 Telephone: +1.415.442.1000 Deputy Clerk Facsimile: +1.415.442.1001 7 Attorneys for Defendant 8 GOULDS PUMPS, INC. now known as GOULDS PUMPS LLC 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 12 13 14 GERALD FALLS, Case No. CGC20276836 15 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS 16 vs. LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL 17 CRANE CO., et al., INJURY - ASBESTOS 18 Defendants. Complaint Filed: May 6, 2020 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS DB2/ 39127406.1 1 GOULDS PUMPS LLC (“Defendant” or “GOULDS PUMPS”), answers Plaintiff’s 2 Complaint for Personal Injury – Asbestos (“Complaint”) as follows: 3 Under the provisions of Section 431.30(d), California Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant 4 denies each and every allegation of Plaintiff’s Complaint and the whole thereof, and denies that 5 Plaintiff has been damaged in any sum or amount whatsoever, or at all. 6 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each of its purported causes of action alleged therein fail to state 8 facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. 9 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the 11 applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to, Code of Civil Procedure sections 12 337.15, 340.2, 343 and 361, and California Commercial Code section 2725. 13 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 Plaintiff is barred from recovery herein by virtue of the application of the Doctrine of 15 Laches (inexcusable delay and prejudice to Defendant). 16 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the 18 equitable Doctrine of Unclean Hands. 19 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the 21 equitable Doctrine of Waiver. 22 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the 24 equitable Doctrine of Estoppel. 25 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of any then-existing conditions alleged in the 27 Complaint with full knowledge thereof, thereby proximately causing the injuries and damages, if 28 any, complained of by Plaintiff is thereby barred from recovery herein. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP -2- ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS DB2/ 39127406.1 1 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 Plaintiff acknowledged, ratified, consented to, and/or acquiesced in the alleged acts or 3 omissions, if any, of this Defendant, thus barring Plaintiff from any relief as prayed for herein. 4 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5 Plaintiff was advised, informed, and/or warned of any potential hazards and/or dangers, if 6 there were any, associated with the normal or foreseeable use, handling, and storage of the 7 products, substances, and/or equipment described in the Complaint. 8 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 If Defendant provided the products alleged to have been defective, and without admitting 10 that it did so or that any product was defective, Defendant provided such products to distributors 11 or other intermediaries, including Plaintiff’s employers, who were knowledgeable, informed and 12 sophisticated concerning the use of the products and the alleged risks to the health of ultimate 13 users, such as Plaintiff, from the use of the products. 14 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred under Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., (2008) 16 43 Cal. 4th 56, because Plaintiff and/or his employers are sophisticated users. 17 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 No conduct by or attributable to Defendant was the cause in fact or the proximate cause of 19 the damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiff, nor a substantial factor in bringing about said 20 damages. 21 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 Any exposure of Plaintiff to Defendant’s products was so minimal as to be insufficient to 23 establish by a reasonable degree of probability that any such product caused any alleged injury, 24 damage, or loss to Plaintiff. 25 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 This Defendant’s products were not a substantial factor in bringing about the injuries and 27 damages complained of by Plaintiff, and, therefore, Defendant may not be held liable to Plaintiff 28 as alleged. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP -3- ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS DB2/ 39127406.1 1 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 That any and all events and happenings in connection with the allegations contained in 3 Plaintiff’s Complaint and the resulting injuries and damages, if any, referred to therein, were 4 proximately caused and contributed to by the negligence of the Plaintiff, thereby barring or 5 reducing Plaintiff’s recovery herein. 6 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 Any loss, injury or damage to Plaintiff was proximately caused or contributed to by the 8 negligent or other tortious acts, omissions, conduct, or products of persons, entities or parties 9 other than Defendant, and that each, any, and all damages recoverable by Plaintiff must be 10 diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to said other persons, entities or 11 parties, and there must be apportioned among all such persons, entities, and parties the amount of 12 damages attributed to them as an offset against damages, if any, awarded against Defendant. 13 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 Any loss, injury, or damage, if any, incurred by Plaintiff was the result of superseding or 15 intervening causes arising from the negligent or willful acts or omissions of other parties which 16 Defendant neither controlled nor had the right to control, and that said loss, injury or damage was 17 not proximately or legally caused by any act, omission, or other conduct of Defendant. 18 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 If Plaintiff sustained any injury or illness attributable to the use of any products and/or 20 equipment manufactured, sold, or supplied by Defendant, which allegations are expressly denied, 21 the injuries were solely caused by and attributable to the unreasonable and improper use which 22 was made of said products and/or equipment, and each of them, by other persons, entities, or 23 parties whom Defendant neither controlled nor had the right to control. 24 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 The product(s) involved was materially altered or changed by a party or parties other than 26 and without the permission of Defendant, its employees, servants, or other agents, and such 27 alteration or change created the alleged defect, if any, which was the proximate or legal cause of 28 Plaintiff’s injuries or damages, if any. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP -4- ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS DB2/ 39127406.1 1 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 The state of the medical, scientific, and industrial knowledge and practice was at all 3 material times such that Defendant neither breached any alleged duty owed Plaintiff, nor knew, 4 nor could have known, that its products presented a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff in the 5 normal and expected use of such products. 6 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 Any products, substances, and/or equipment manufactured, formulated, sold or supplied 8 by Defendant were made consistent with the state of the art and all health and safety statutes and 9 regulations applicable to said products, substances, and/or equipment at the time of their 10 manufacture, sale, formulation, or supply. 11 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 The products, substances, and/or equipment referred to in the Complaint were properly 13 designed and manufactured, and safe for the purpose intended. Said products, substances, and/or 14 equipment were modified, altered, misused, abused, and/or improperly maintained by Plaintiff or 15 others, and said conduct was not reasonably foreseeable to Defendant and proximately caused or 16 contributed to the injuries, losses, and damages complained of, if any, thus barring Plaintiff’s 17 recovery herein. 18 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 The asbestos-containing products, if any, for which Defendant had legal responsibility 20 were installed, labeled, assembled, serviced, supplied, manufactured, designed, packaged, 21 supplied, marketed, and/or sold in accordance with contract specifications imposed by its co- 22 defendants, by the U.S. Government, by Plaintiff’s employers, and/or by third parties yet to be 23 identified. 24 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred under 26 the government contractor defense. 27 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein, which are admittedly based MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP -5- ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS DB2/ 39127406.1 1 upon a lack of identification of the manufacturer(s) and/or supplier(s) of the alleged injury- 2 causing product(s), fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that Plaintiff has 3 asserted a claim for relief which, if granted, would contravene Defendant’s constitutional rights to 4 substantive and procedural due process of law as preserved for Defendant by the Fourteenth 5 Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article I section 7, of the Constitution of the 6 State of California. 7 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred under O’Neil v. Crane Co., (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335 9 and Taylor v. Elliot Turbomachinery Co., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564, among other cases, 10 because Plaintiff has not pleaded and cannot show that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos- 11 containing products that were manufactured, sold or supplied by Defendant or that were original 12 to any equipment alleged to be manufactured, sold or supplied by Defendant. 13 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, if any, in that they failed to use reasonable 15 diligence in caring for Plaintiff’s injuries and reasonable means to prevent their aggravation or to 16 accomplish their healing. 17 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 Plaintiff failed to give Defendant reasonably prompt notice of the breaches of warranty, if 19 any, alleged in the Complaint. 20 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 Plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Defendant and said lack of privity bars 22 Plaintiff’s recovery herein upon any theory of warranty. 23 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 Plaintiff herein has failed to join indispensable parties (California Code of Civil Procedure 25 section 389) such that the Complaint is defective, and Plaintiff is thereby precluded from any 26 recovery whatsoever as prayed for herein. 27 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28 To the extent the Complaint asserts Defendant’s alleged “alternative,” “market share,” or MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP -6- ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS DB2/ 39127406.1 1 “enterprise” liability, the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action 2 against Defendant. 3 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein fail to state facts sufficient 5 to constitute a cause of action against Defendant in that Plaintiff has failed to join a substantial 6 market share of the producers of the product or products to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed. 7 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 Defendant did not and does not have a substantial percentage of the market for the 9 asbestos-containing products that allegedly caused Plaintiff’s injuries. Therefore, Defendant may 10 not be held liable to Plaintiff based on Defendant’s alleged percentage share of the applicable 11 market. 12 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 Plaintiff has no standing or right to sue for fraud and conspiracy, breach of warranty, 14 deceit, or any cause of action under California Civil Code sections 1708-1710, and therefore each 15 such cause of action in the Complaint, if any, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of 16 action against this Defendant. 17 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 Fraud and conspiracy do not constitute a separate and distinct form of damages from 19 general damages. Therefore, the prayer for fraud and conspiracy in addition to general damages 20 does not sufficiently support or constitute a separate claim for damages against this Defendant, 21 but is simply cumulative and included in general damages. 22 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 Plaintiff’s alleged cause of action seeking punitive damages against Defendant, if any, 24 does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this Defendant. 25 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 Plaintiff’s claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, is barred by the due process 27 clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 28 /// MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP -7- ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS DB2/ 39127406.1 1 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 Plaintiff’s claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, is barred by the Eighth 3 Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth 4 Amendment, prohibiting the imposition of excessive fines. 5 THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 Plaintiff’s claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, is barred by the “double 7 jeopardy” clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the 8 States through the Fourteenth Amendment. 9 FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 To the extent that these words purportedly apply to Defendant, which Defendant denies, 11 the Complaint does not state sufficient facts constituting “fraud,” “oppression,” or “malice,” as 12 these terms are used in California Civil Code section 3294. 13 FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 Defendant alleges that California Civil Code Section 3294, et seq. violates the California 15 and/or the United States Constitutions because, among other things, it violates the due process 16 clauses and the equal protection clauses thereof, respectively; it is void because it is vague and 17 ambiguous; it constitutes an undue burden on interstate commerce; and it violates the Eighth 18 Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that, therefore, Plaintiff is barred from any 19 recovery thereunder. 20 FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 If Defendant is responsible to Plaintiff, which responsibility is expressly denied, 22 Defendant shall be liable to Plaintiff only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to 23 each defendant in direct proportion to each defendant’s percentage of fault, if any. (California 24 Civil Code sections 1431, et seq.). 25 FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 As between Plaintiff and Defendant, the law applicable to this action is the law as it 27 existed during the period Defendant engaged, if at all, in the manufacture, sale, or supply of 28 asbestos-containing products to which the Plaintiff claim exposure. It is unlawful, inequitable, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP -8- ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS DB2/ 39127406.1 1 and in violation of Defendant’s contractual, statutory, and constitutional rights to apply principles 2 of law other than or in a manner different from those which existed for the period in which 3 Defendant manufactured, sold, or supplied products to which Plaintiff claim exposure. 4 FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5 Defendant denies any and all liability to the extent that Plaintiff asserts Defendant’s 6 alleged liability as a successor-in-interest, successor-in-business, successor-in-product line, or a 7 portion thereof; assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in product line, or a 8 portion thereof; parent, alter ego, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial 9 owner of or member in an entity researching, studying, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, 10 labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, 11 installing, contracting, or installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, re-branding, 12 manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising a certain substance, the generic name of 13 which is asbestos. 14 FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged in the Complaint 16 because the Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein against Defendant are 17 barred by the provisions of California Labor Code sections 3600, et seq. 18 FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 At the time and place of the happening of the occurrences and injuries alleged in the 20 Complaint, and all times material thereto, Plaintiff was employed by various employers, the 21 names of which are unknown to this Defendant, and working within the course and scope of their 22 employment. Said employers and Plaintiff were subject to the provisions of the Workers’ 23 Compensation Act of the State of California and Plaintiff was entitled to receive Workers’ 24 Compensation benefits from his employers. Certain sums have been paid to or on behalf of 25 Plaintiff herein under the applicable provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California. Said 26 employers and each of them were negligent, careless, and at fault in and about the matters 27 referred to in the Complaint and such negligence, carelessness, and fault proximately and 28 concurrently contributed to and caused the happening of the incidents complained of by Plaintiff, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP -9- ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS DB2/ 39127406.1 1 if there were any. By these premises, any judgment rendered in favor of Plaintiff herein must be 2 reduced by any benefits or payments made or to be made to Plaintiff by Plaintiff’s employers or 3 their compensation carrier(s) under Witt vs. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57 [17 Cal.Rptr. 369, 360 4 P.2d 641]. 5 FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 Plaintiff has received, or in the future may receive, Workers’ Compensation benefits from 7 Defendant under the Labor Code of the State of California as a consequence of the alleged 8 industrial injury referred to in the Complaint, and, in the event Plaintiff is awarded damages 9 against Defendant, Defendant claims a credit against this award to the extent that Defendant is 10 barred from enforcing its rights to reimbursement for Workers’ Compensation benefits that 11 Plaintiff has received or may in the future receive. 12 Each denial of Plaintiff’s allegations, together with each of Defendant’s allegations, 13 defenses and factual contentions, all as set forth herein, are hereby specifically identified as 14 denials, allegations, defenses and factual contentions subject to reasonable opportunity for further 15 investigation and discovery, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(3)(4). 16 WHEREFORE, this Defendant prays that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed and that 17 Plaintiff takes nothing by virtue of this Complaint on file herein, for its costs of suit herein 18 incurred, for appropriate credits and setoffs arising out of any payment of Workers’ 19 Compensation benefits alleged herein, and for any other and further relief as the Court 20 may deem proper. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP - 10 - ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS DB2/ 39127406.1 1 Dated: June 17, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 2 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 3 4 By Marisa R. Chaves 5 One Market Spear Street Tower 6 San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 +1.415.442.1000 7 SBN 236533 8 Attorneys for Defendant GOULDS PUMPS, INC. now known as 9 GOULDS PUMPS LLC 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP - 11 - ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY – ASBESTOS DB2/ 39127406.1 1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION 2 Gerald Falls v. Crane Co., et al. San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-20-276836 3 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California and employed 4 in the County of San Francisco, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is One Market, Spear Street Tower, San 5 Francisco, CA 94105-1596. 6 On June 17, 2020, I served a copy of the within documents: 7 DEFENDANT GOULDS PUMPS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS GOULDS PUMPS LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S 8 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 9 BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Pursuant to San Francisco Court General Order No. 158, CCP 1010.6 and CRC 2.251, or pursuant to the Stipulation and Order 10 Authorizing Electronic Service, or by an agreement of the parties, at approximately 4:30 p.m. I electronically e-served through File & ServeXpress and caused the document to be 11 sent to the persons at the email addresses designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the File & ServeXpress website. To the best of my knowledge, at the time of the 12 transmission, the transmission was reported as complete and without error. 13 14 Executed on June 17, 2020, at San Francisco, California. 15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 16 17 18 Faye Genevieve Miranda 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION DB2/ 39127406.1