Preview
1 David R. Ongaro (State Bar No. 154698)
dongaro@ongaropc.com
2 Kirsten McNelly Bibbes (State Bar No. 276308)
kbibbes@ongaropc.com ELECTRONICALLY
3 Kenneth M. Natelborg (State Bar No. 260550) F I L E D
knatelborg@ongaropc.com Superior Court of California,
4 ONGARO PC County of San Francisco
50 California Street, Suite 3325 05/07/2020
5 San Francisco, CA 94111 Clerk of the Court
Telephone: (415) 433-3900 BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE
Deputy Clerk
6 Facsimile: (415) 433-3950
7 Attorneys for Defendant
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., f/k/a
8 AlliedSignal Inc., Successor-In-Interest To
The Bendix Corporation
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
11
12 GLORIA LUZ MARTINEZ, Individually Case No. CGC-15-276442
and as Successor-in-Interest to JUAN
13 SANCHEZ MARTINEZ, SR., Decedent; DEFENDANT HONEYWELL
JUAN MARTINEZ, JR., MARTIN INTERNATIONAL INC.’S INDEX OF
14
MARTINEZ, and FRANCISCO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS
15 MARTINEZ, MOTION FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION OF PLAINTIFFS’
16 Plaintiffs, PUNITIVE DAMAGE CLAIM
17 vs. Date: July 23, 2020
Time: 9:30 a.m.
18
ASBESTOS COMPANIES, et al. Dept.: 503
19 Judge: Hon. Cynthia Lee
Defendants.
20 Accompanying Documents:
1. Notice of Motion and Motion
21 2. Memorandum of Points and Authorities
3. Separate Statement
22
23
Complaint filed: July 9, 2015
24 Trial Date: August 24, 2020
25
26
27
28
HONEYWELL’S INDEX OF EVIDENCE
INDEX OF EVIDENCE
1
2 Exhibit Description
3 1 Declaration of Kenneth M. Natelborg in Support of Defendant Honeywell
International Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication.
4 A Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Damages (Wrongful Death), filed July 9, 2015, in the
above-captioned matter.
5 B Gloria Martinez’s responses to standard wrongful death interrogatories served
6 on May 3, 2017, in the above-captioned matter.
C Honeywell’s special interrogatories, set one served on plaintiff Gloria Martinez
7 on October 16, 2017, in the above-captioned matter.
D Gloria Martinez’s responses to Honeywell’s special interrogatories, set one
8 served on December 21, 2017, in the above-captioned matter.
9 E Gloria Martinez’s amended responses to Honeywell’s special interrogatories, set
one served on February 28, 2018, in the above-captioned matter.
10 F Gloria Martinez’s second amended responses to Honeywell’s special
interrogatories, set one served on April 17, 2018, in the above captioned matter.
11 G Gloria Martinez’s third amended responses to Honeywell’s special
interrogatories, set one served on October 31, 2018, in the above captioned
12 matter.
13 H Honeywell’s requests for production of documents, set one served on plaintiff
Gloria Martinez on October 16, 2018, in the above captioned matter.
14 I Gloria Martinez’s responses to Honeywell’s requests for production of
documents, set one served on December 21, 2017, in the above captioned
15 matter.
16 J Honeywell’s requests for admission, set one served on plaintiff Gloria Martinez
on October 16, 2017, in the above captioned matter.
17 K Gloria Martinez’s responses to Honeywell’s requests for admission, set one
served on December 21, 2017, in the above captioned matter.
18 L Pertinent pages from the first volume of the deposition of plaintiff Martin
Martinez taken on September 13, 2019, in the above captioned matter.
19
M Pertinent pages from the third volume of the deposition of plaintiff Martin
20 Martinez taken on September 18, 2019, in the above captioned matter.
N Pertinent pages from the deposition of plaintiff Anthony Guillen taken on
21 December 16, 2019, in the above captioned matter.
O Pertinent pages from the deposition of plaintiff Juan Martinez, Jr. taken on
22 October 2, 2019, in the above captioned matter.
23 P Pertinent pages from the deposition of plaintiff Francisco Martinez taken on
October 18, 2019, in the above captioned matter.
24 Q Pertinent pages from the deposition of plaintiff Gloria Martinez taken on
October 1, 2019, in the above captioned matter.
25 R Honeywell’s supplemental interrogatory propounded to plaintiffs on July 24,
2018.
26
S Gloria Martinez’s response to Honeywell’s supplemental interrogatory
27 propounded to plaintiffs on August 23, 2018.
T Honeywell’s supplemental requests for documents propounded to plaintiffs on
28 July 24, 2018.
HONEYWELL’S INDEX OF EVIDENCE
U Gloria Martinez’s response to Honeywell’s supplemental requests for
1 documents propounded to plaintiffs on August 23, 2018.
2 V 29 C.F.R. 1910.93a(g)(2).
W 29 C.F.R. 1910.1001(j)(2)(ii).
3 X 29 C.F.R. 1910.1001(j)(4)(i).
Y Hickish and Knight, Exposure to Asbestos During Brake Maintenance,
4 CONFERENCE ON EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS DURING BRAKE AND CLUTCH
MAINTENANCE IN BRENTWOOD EDDEX, Mar. 1969.
5
Z M.G. Jacko, et al., Thermal Stability & Fade Characteristics of Friction
6 Materials, 1968.
AA Pertinent pages from the deposition of Joel B. Charm in Johney Larimore v
7 American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Missouri Circuit Court, 22nd Judicial Circuit,
Case No. 1022-CC01768, taken March 29, 2011 (pp. 155:23-156:10).
8
BB Declaration of Colleen Baime executed on November 21, 2017.
9 CC The declaration of Joel Charm executed May 24, 2010 with supporting exhibits.
DD Honeywell’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Dieden Interrogatories served
10 in the Rodoni matter. Plaintiffs’ counsel of record, the Gold Law Firm, was also
the counsel of record for the plaintiffs in Rodoni.
11 EE Johns-Manville position paper, Asbestos and Human Health, 1968.
12 FF Jeremiah R. Lynch, Brake Lining Decomposition Products report, ENGINEERS
ROUND TABLE THIRTIETH ANNUAL MEETING AMERICAN CONFERENCE OF
13 GOVERNMENTAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS, May 12, 1968.
GG Paul Gross, M.D., Report on the Pulmonary Response to Brake-Drum Dust: A
14 Preliminary Investigation for Johns Manville Corporation, INDUSTRIAL
HYGIENE FOUNDATION, 1968.
15
HH Hickish and Knight, Exposure to Asbestos During Brake Maintenance,
16 CONFERENCE ON EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS DURING BRAKE AND CLUTCH
MAINTENANCE IN BRENTWOOD EDDEX, Mar. 1969.
17 II H.A. Shapiro, Pneumoconiosis, Proceedings of the International Conference,
Johannesburg 1969, CAPE TOWN OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1970.
18 JJ M. G. Jacko, et al., Brake emissions: emission measurements from brake and
19 clutch linings from selected mobile sources, Mar. 1973.
KK Honeywell’s answer to plaintiffs’ wrongful death complaint filed on May 9,
20 2017.
LL David H. Garabrant, et al., Mesothelioma among Motor Vehicle Mechanics:
21 And Updated Review and Meta-analysis, ANNALS OF OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE,
Aug. 2015.
22
MM David Garabrant & Susan Pastula, A comparison of asbestos fiber potency and
23 elongate mineral particle (EMP) potency for mesothelioma in humans,
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, July 2018.
24 NN David H. Garabrant, et al., Mesothelioma among Motor Vehicle Mechanics: An
Updated Review and Meta-Analysis, ANNALS OF OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE, Jan.
25 2016.
26 OO Robert Hackney, Asbestos Safety Reaffirmed, CHEMICAL WEEK, Oct. 8, 1966.
PP Journal News article, dated October 6, 1964.
27 QQ Times-Union article, dated October 6, 1964.
RR Johns-Manville Position Paper, Asbestos and Human health dated January 7,
28 1969.
HONEYWELL’S INDEX OF EVIDENCE
SS Letter from E.W. Drislane to Mr. J. H. Kelly, dated November 28, 1972.
1 TT Bendix Internal Memo, dated August 21, 1973.
2 UU Letter from E. A. Martin to N. Hendry, dated September 12, 1966 (the “Letter”).
VV H.G. Donovan, J-M letter, and attachment to H. Stolar, Bendix, Jan. 7, 1969.
3 WW The 1972 J-M memorandum by H.G. Donovan titled “Bendix Corporation
Southfield Michigan Asbestos Health Seminar 8/8/72.”
4 XX Notice of Ruling from the Van Evera v. Honeywell case.
5 YY Notice of Ruling from the Solorzano v. Honeywell case.
ZZ Notice of Ruling from the Mettias v. Honeywell case.
6
7
Dated: May 7, 2020 ONGARO PC
8
9
10 By: ___________________________
Kenneth Natelborg
11 Attorneys for Defendant
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
12 f/k/a AlliedSignal Inc., Successor-in-
Interest to The Bendix Corporation
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HONEYWELL’S INDEX OF EVIDENCE
EXHIBIT 1
1 David R. Ongaro (State Bar No. 154698)
dongaro@ongaropc.com
2 Kirsten McNelly Bibbes (State Bar No. 276308)
kbibbes@ongaropc.com
3 Kenneth M. Natelborg (State Bar No. 260550)
knatelborg@ongaropc.com
4 ONGARO PC
1604 Union Street
5 San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 433-3900
6 Facsimile: (415) 433-3950
7 Attorneys for Defendant
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., f/k/a
8 AlliedSignal Inc., Successor-In-Interest To
The Bendix Corporation
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
11
12 GLORIA LUZ MARTINEZ, Individually Case No. CGC-15-276442
and as Successor-in-Interest to JUAN
13 SANCHEZ MARTINEZ, SR., Decedent; DECLARATION OF KENNETH M.
JUAN MARTINEZ, JR., MARTIN NATELBORG IN SUPPORT OF
14
MARTINEZ, and FRANCISCO DEFENDANT HONEYWELL
15 MARTINEZ, INTERNATIONAL INC.’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF
16 Plaintiff PLAINTIFFS’ PUNITIVE DAMAGE
CLAIM
17 vs.
Date: July 23, 2020
18
ASBESTOS COMPANIES, et al. Time: 9:30 a.m.
19 Dept.: 503
Defendants. Judge: Hon. Cynthia Lee
20
Accompanying Documents:
21 1. Notice of Motion and Motion
2. Memorandum of Points and Authorities
22
3. Separate Statement
23 4. Index of Evidence
24 Complaint filed: July 9, 2015
Trial Date: August 24, 2020
25
26
I, Kenneth M. Natelborg, declare as follows:
27
1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in California. I am counsel with the law
28
DECLARATION OF KENNETH M. NATELBORG IN SUPPORT OF HONEYWELL’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY AJUDICATION
1 firm of Ongaro PC, attorneys of record for defendant Honeywell International Inc. (“Honeywell”)
2 in the above captioned matter. I am one of the attorneys working on the defense of this matter for
3 Honeywell. The facts set forth herein are of my own personal knowledge and if called upon to
4 testify, I could and would do so competently. I submit this declaration in support of Honeywell’s
5 Motion for Summary Adjudication.
6 2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Complaint for
7 Damages (Wrongful Death), filed July 9, 2015, in the above-captioned matter.
8 3. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Gloria Martinez’s responses to
9 standard wrongful death interrogatories served on May 3, 2017, in the above-captioned matter.
10 4. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Honeywell’s special
11 interrogatories, set one served on plaintiff Gloria Martinez on October 16, 2017, in the above-
12 captioned matter.
13 5. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Gloria Martinez’s responses to
14 Honeywell’s special interrogatories, set one served on December 21, 2017, in the above-captioned
15 matter.
16 6. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of Gloria Martinez’s amended
17 responses to Honeywell’s special interrogatories, set one served on February 28, 2018, in the
18 above-captioned matter.
19 7. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Gloria Martinez’s second
20 amended responses to Honeywell’s special interrogatories, set one served on April 17, 2018, in the
21 above captioned matter.
22 8. Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of Gloria Martinez’s third
23 amended responses to Honeywell’s special interrogatories, set one served on October 31, 2018, in
24 the above captioned matter.
25 9. Attached as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Honeywell’s requests for
26 production of documents, set one served on plaintiff Gloria Martinez on October 16, 2018, in the
27 above captioned matter.
28
DECLARATION OF KENNETH M. NATELBORG IN SUPPORT OF HONEYWELL’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY AJUDICATION
1 10. Attached as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of Gloria Martinez’s responses to
2 Honeywell’s requests for production of documents, set one served on December 21, 2017, in the
3 above captioned matter.
4 11. Attached as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of Honeywell’s requests for
5 admission, set one served on plaintiff Gloria Martinez on October 16, 2017, in the above
6 captioned matter.
7 12. Attached as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of Gloria Martinez’s responses to
8 Honeywell’s requests for admission, set one served on December 21, 2017, in the above captioned
9 matter.
10 13. Attached as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of the pertinent pages from the first
11 volume of the deposition of plaintiff Martin Martinez taken on September 13, 2019, in the above
12 captioned matter.
13 14. Attached as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of the pertinent pages from the
14 third volume of the deposition of plaintiff Martin Martinez taken on September 18, 2019, in the
15 above captioned matter.
16 15. Attached as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of the pertinent pages from the
17 deposition of plaintiff Anthony Guillen taken on December 16, 2019, in the above captioned
18 matter.
19 16. Attached as Exhibit O is a true and correct copy of the pertinent pages from the
20 deposition of plaintiff Juan Martinez, Jr. taken on October 2, 2019, in the above captioned matter.
21 17. Attached as Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of the pertinent pages from the
22 deposition of plaintiff Francisco Martinez taken on October 18, 2019, in the above captioned
23 matter.
24 18. Attached as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of the pertinent pages from the
25 deposition of plaintiff Gloria Martinez taken on October 1, 2019, in the above captioned matter.
26 19. Attached as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of Honeywell’s supplemental
27 interrogatory propounded to plaintiffs on July 24, 2018.
28
DECLARATION OF KENNETH M. NATELBORG IN SUPPORT OF HONEYWELL’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY AJUDICATION
1 20. Attached as Exhibit S is a true and correct copy of Gloria Martinez’s response to
2 Honeywell’s supplemental interrogatory propounded to plaintiffs on August 23, 2018.
3 21. Attached as Exhibit T is a true and correct copy of Honeywell’s supplemental
4 requests for documents propounded to plaintiffs on July 24, 2018.
5 22. Attached as Exhibit U is a true and correct copy of Gloria Martinez’s response to
6 Honeywell’s supplemental requests for documents propounded to plaintiffs on August 23, 2018.
7 23. Attached as Exhibit V is a true and correct copy of 29 C.F.R. 1910.93a(g)(2).
8 24. Attached as Exhibit W is a true and correct copy of 29 C.F.R. 1910.1001(j)(2)(ii).
9 25. Attached as Exhibit X is a true and correct copy of 29 C.F.R. 1910.1001(j)(4)(i).
10 26. Attached as Exhibit Y is a true and correct copy of Hickish and Knight, Exposure
11 to Asbestos During Brake Maintenance, CONFERENCE ON EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS DURING BRAKE
12 AND CLUTCH MAINTENANCE IN BRENTWOOD EDDEX, Mar. 1969.
13 27. Attached as Exhibit Z is a true and correct copy of M.G. Jacko, et al., Thermal
14 Stability & Fade Characteristics of Friction Materials, 1968
15 28. Attached as Exhibit AA is a true and correct copy of the deposition of Joel Charm
16 in Larimore v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Missouri Circuit Court, 22nd Judicial Circuit,
17 Case No. 1022-CC01768, taken March 29, 2011 (pp. 155:23-156:10).
18 29. Attached as Exhibit BB is a true and correct copy of the declaration of Colleen
19 Baime executed on November 20, 2019.
20 30. Attached as Exhibit CC is a true and correct copy of the declaration of Joel Charm
21 executed May 24, 2010 with supporting exhibits.
22 31. Attached as Exhibit DD is a true and correct copy of Honeywell’s Responses to
23 Plaintiffs’ First Set of Dieden Interrogatories served in the Rodoni matter. Plaintiffs’ counsel of
24 record, the Gold Law Firm, was also the counsel of record for the plaintiffs in Rodoni.
25 32. Attached as Exhibit EE is a true and correct copy of the Johns-Manville position
26 paper, Asbestos and Human Health, 1968.
27
28
DECLARATION OF KENNETH M. NATELBORG IN SUPPORT OF HONEYWELL’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY AJUDICATION
1 33. Attached as Exhibit FF is a true and correct copy of Jeremiah R. Lynch, Brake
2 Lining Decomposition Products report, ENGINEERS ROUND TABLE THIRTIETH ANNUAL MEETING
3 AMERICAN CONFERENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS, May 12, 1968.
4 34. Attached as Exhibit GG is a true and correct copy of Paul Gross, M.D., Report on
5 the Pulmonary Response to Brake-Drum Dust: A Preliminary Investigation for Johns Manville
6 Corporation, INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE FOUNDATION, 1968.
7 35. Attached as Exhibit HH is a true and correct copy of Hickish and Knight, Exposure
8 to Asbestos During Brake Maintenance, CONFERENCE ON EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS DURING BRAKE
9 AND CLUTCH MAINTENANCE IN BRENTWOOD EDDEX, Mar. 1969.
10 36. Attached as Exhibit II is a true and correct copy of H.A. Shapiro, Pneumoconiosis,
11 Proceedings of the International Conference, Johannesburg 1969, CAPE TOWN OXFORD
12 UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1970.
13 37. Attached as Exhibit JJ is a true and correct copy of M. G. Jacko, et al., Brake
14 emissions: emission measurements from brake and clutch linings from selected mobile sources,
15 Mar. 1973.
16 38. Attached as Exhibit KK is a true and correct copy of Honeywell’s answer to
17 plaintiffs’ wrongful death complaint filed on May 9, 2017.
18 39. Attached as Exhibit LL is a true and correct copy of David H. Garabrant, et al.,
19 Mesothelioma among Motor Vehicle Mechanics: And Updated Review and Meta-analysis,
20 ANNALS OF OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE, Aug. 2015.
21 40. Attached as Exhibit MM is a true and correct copy of David Garabrant & Susan
22 Pastula, A comparison of asbestos fiber potency and elongate mineral particle (EMP) potency for
23 mesothelioma in humans, TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY, July 2018.
24 41. Attached as Exhibit NN is a true and correct copy of David H. Garabrant, et al.,
25 Mesothelioma among Motor Vehicle Mechanics: An Updated Review and Meta-Analysis, ANNALS
26 OF OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE, Jan. 2016.
27
28
DECLARATION OF KENNETH M. NATELBORG IN SUPPORT OF HONEYWELL’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY AJUDICATION
1 42. Attached as Exhibit OO is a true and correct copy of Robert Hackney, Asbestos
2 Safety Reaffirmed, CHEMICAL WEEK, Oct. 8, 1966.
3 43. Attached as Exhibit PP is a copy of what plaintiffs claim is the Journal News
4 article, dated October 6, 1964.
5 44. Attached as Exhibit QQ is a copy of the what plaintiffs claim is the Times-Union
6 article, dated October 6, 1964.
7 45. Attached as Exhibit RR is a true and correct copy of the Johns-Manville Position
8 Paper, Asbestos and Human health dated January 7, 1969.
9 46. Attached as Exhibit SS is a copy of what plaintiffs claim is the letter from E.W.
10 Drislane to Mr. J. H. Kelly, dated November 28, 1972.
11 47. Attached as Exhibit TT is a copy of what plaintiffs claim is the Bendix Internal
12 Memo, dated August 21, 1973.
13 48. Attached as Exhibit UU is a copy of what plaintiffs’ counsels have purported to be
14 a copy of the letter from E. A. Martin to N. Hendry, dated September 12, 1966 (the “Letter”).
15 49. Attached as Exhibit VV is a copy of the what plaintiffs claim is the H.G. Donovan,
16 J-M, letter and attachment to H. Stolar, Bendix, Jan. 7, 1969.
17 50. Attached as Exhibit WW is a true and correct copy of the 1972 J-M memorandum
18 by H.G. Donovan titled “Bendix Corporation Southfield Michigan Asbestos Health Seminar
19 8/8/72.”
20 51. Attached as Exhibit XX is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Ruling from the
21 Van Evera v. Honeywell case.
22 52. Attached as Exhibit YY is a true and correct copy of the Notice of ruling from the
23 Solorzano v. Honeywell case.
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
DECLARATION OF KENNETH M. NATELBORG IN SUPPORT OF HONEYWELL’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY AJUDICATION
1 53. Attached as Exhibit ZZ is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Ruling from the
2 Mettias v. Honeywell case.
3 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
4 foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on May 7, 2020, in
5 Huntington Beach, California.
6
7 _______________________________
8 Kenneth M. Natelborg
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF KENNETH M. NATELBORG IN SUPPORT OF HONEYWELL’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY AJUDICATION
EXHIBIT A
ROGER GOLD, ESQ. [SRN 214802]
rgold(ci),rgoldlegal.com
2 BARRY K. MATSON [SBN 179774] ENDORSED
bmatson(a>.r PO Id lega I.com
3 GRANT E. WALTERS [SBN 236421) f .\ Lrt Vca1ltrnia
0
Supenolr CotoMan Francisco
coun Y
gwalters@rgoldlegal.com
4 GOLD LAW FIRM
353 Sacramento Street, Suite 1140 JUL O9 2015
5 San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 986-1338 CLERK OF THE. COURT
6 Fax: (415) 373-4579 GARY FELIC~O~
BY: - oepUIY Cler
7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
11 (UNLIMITED JURISDICTION)
12 GLORIA LUZ MARTINEZ, Individually and as ) No.
cac-1s-276442
Successor-in-Interest to JUAN SANCHEZ MARTINEZ, )
13 SR., Decedent; JUAN MARTINEZ, JR., MARTIN )
MARTINEZ, FRANCISCO MARTINEZ, and DOES ) COMPLAINT FOR
14 ONE through TEN, inclusive, ) DAMAGES
)
15 ) (Wrongful Death)
PLAINTIFFS, )
16 (Asbestos)
)
VS. )
17 Negligence
)
ASBESTOS COMPANIES; ) Strict Liability
18 BORG-WARNER CORPORATION by its Successor in ) Survival Action
Interest, BORGWARNER MORSE TEC INC.;
19 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY aka NAPA AUTO ) And
PARTS; ) Loss of Consortium
20 HILL BROTHERS CHEMICAL COMPANY; )
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. fka ALLIED )
21 SIGNAL, INC./fHE BENDIX CORPORATION; )
PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION, as successor to )
22 EIS and CALI-BLOK; )
SAN FRANCISCO GRAVEL CO., INC.; )
SOCO-WEST, INC., AS SUCCESSOR-TN-INTEREST )
TO WESTERN CHEMICAL & MANUFACTURING )
COMPANY; )
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; )
AND THE FIRST DOE THROUGH THREE )
HUNDREDTH DOE, INCLUSIVE, )
)
)
DEFENDANTS. )
)
!--------------------)
1
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
2
3 I. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, governmental or
4 otherwise, of defendants FIRST DOE through THREE HUNDREDTH DOE, inclusive, are known
5 to Plaintiffs at this time, who therefore sue said defendants by such fi<;titious names.
When the
6 true names and capacities of said defendants have been ascertained, Plaintiffs will amend this
7 complaint accordingly. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each defendant
8 designated herein as a DOE is responsible, negligently or in some other actionable manner, for the
9 events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and caused injuries and damages proximately
IO thereby to the decedent, as hereinafter alleged.
11 2. At all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants, except as otherwise alleged, was
12 the agent, servant, employee and/or joint venturer of his co-defendants, and each of them, and at all
13. said times, each defendant was acting in the full course and scope of said agency, service,
14 employment and/or joint venture. Certain defendants agreed and conspired among themselves and
15 with certain other individuals and/or entities, to act, or not to act, in such a manner that resulted in
16 injury to the decedent; and such defendants, as co-conspirators, are liable for the acts, or failures to
17 act, of other conspiring defendants.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that at
18 all times herein mentioned, defendants ASBESTOS COMPANIES; BORG-WARNER
19 CORPORATION by its Successor in Interest, BORGWARNER MORSE TEC !NC.; GENUINE
. . . .
20 PARTS COMPANY aka NAPA AUTO PARTS; HILL BROTHERS CHEMICAL COMPANY;
21 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. flea ALLIED SIGNAL, INC.rrHE .8ENDTX
22 CORPORATION; PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION, as successor to EIS and CALI-BLOK;
23 SAN FRANCISCO GRA VEJ, CO., INC.; SQCO-WEST, INC., AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST
24 TO WESTERN CHEMICAL & MANUFACTURING COMPANY; UNION CARBIDE
25 CORPORATION; AND THE FIRST DOE THROUGH THREE HUNDREDTH DOE,
26 INCLUSIVE, are corporations organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State
27 of California, or the laws of some state or foreign jurisdiction, and that said defendants were and
28 are authorized to do and are doing business in the State of California, and that said defendants have
2
-·
regularly conducted business in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California.
The
2
defendants identified in this paragraph are hereinafter referred to as "ASBESTOS
3
DEFENDANTS."
4
3. At all times herein mentioned, each of the ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS was the
5
successor, successor in business, successor in product line or a portion thereof; parent, subsidiary,
6
wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial owner of or member in an entity researching,
7
studying, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying,
8
offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, removing, cutting, scraping, modifying,
9
disturbing, handling, contracting for installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, rebranding,
10
manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising a certain substance the generic name for which
11
is asbestos, and other products containing said substance.
Said entities shall hereinafter collectively
12
Each of the herein named ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS are liable for
be called "alternate entities".
13
the tortious conduct of each successor, successor in business, successor in product line or a portion
14
thereof, assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in product line or a portion
15
thereof, parent, subsidiary, alter-ego, whole of partial owner, or wholly or partially owned entity, or
16
entity that it as a member of, or funded, that researched, studied, manufactured, fabricated, designed,
17
labeled, assembled, distributed, leased, bought, offered for sale, sold, inspected, serviced, installed,
18
contracted for installation, repaired, marketed, wan anted, rebranded, manufactured for others and
19
advertised a certain substance, the generic n~me of which is asbestos, and other products containing
.
20
said substance. The following ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and each of them, are liable for the
21
acts of each and every "alternate entity", and each of them, in that there has been a virtual
22
destruction of Plaintiffs remedy against each such "alternate entity"; ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS,
23
and each of them, have acquired the assets, product line, or apportion thereof, of each such "alternate
24
entity"; ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and each of them, caused the destruction of Plaintiffs remedy
25
against each such "alternate entity"; each such ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS has the ability to
26
assume the risk-spreading role of each such "alternate entity"; and that each such ASBESTOS
27
DEFENDANT enjoys the goodwill originally attached to each such "alternate entity".
28