Preview
1 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
JOSEPH DUFFY, Bar No. 241854
2 joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com
ELECTRONICALLY
AMY J. TALARICO, Bar No. 209112
3
amy.talarico@morganlewis.com FILED
Superior Court of California,
4 MARISA R. CHAVES, Bar No. 236533 County of San Francisco
marisa.chaves@morganlewis.com 07/29/2020
5 One Market Clerk of the Court
BY: MADONNA CARANTO
Spear Street Tower Deputy Clerk
6 San Francisco, California 94105-1596
7 Telephone: +1.415.442.1000
Facsimile: +1.415.442.1001
8
Attorneys for Defendant
9 JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
13
14 MARK OWENS and DEBORA OWENS, Case No. CGC-20-276843
15 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO
16 vs. PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR
PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF
17 CRANE CO., et al., CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS
18 Defendants. Complaint Filed: June 12, 2020
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS
1 JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. (“Defendant” or “JOHNSON CONTROLS”), answers
2 Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Personal Injury and Loss of Consortium – Asbestos (“Complaint”) as
3 follows:
4 Under the provisions of Section 431.30(d), California Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant
5 denies each and every allegation of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the whole thereof, and denies that
6 Plaintiffs have been damaged in any sum or amount whatsoever, or at all.
7 Whenever “Plaintiff” or “Plaintiffs” is used in this Answer, that reference embraces each
8 Plaintiff individually as well as collectively, plus the words “each of them.”
9 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each of its purported causes of action alleged therein fail to state
11 facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant.
12 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the
14 applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to, Code of Civil Procedure sections
15 337.15, 340.2, 343 and 361, and California Commercial Code section 2725.
16 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 Plaintiff is barred from recovery herein by virtue of the application of the Doctrine of
18 Laches (inexcusable delay and prejudice to Defendant).
19 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the
21 equitable Doctrine of Unclean Hands.
22 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the
24 equitable Doctrine of Waiver.
25 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the
27 equitable Doctrine of Estoppel.
28 ///
MORGAN, LEWIS & -2-
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS
1 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of any then-existing conditions alleged in the
3 Complaint with full knowledge thereof, thereby proximately causing the injuries and damages, if
4 any, complained of by Plaintiff is thereby barred from recovery herein.
5 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 Plaintiff acknowledged, ratified, consented to, and/or acquiesced in the alleged acts or
7 omissions, if any, of this Defendant, thus barring Plaintiff from any relief as prayed for herein.
8 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 Plaintiff was advised, informed, and/or warned of any potential hazards and/or dangers, if
10 there were any, associated with the normal or foreseeable use, handling, and storage of the
11 products, substances, and/or equipment described in the Complaint.
12 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 If Defendant provided the products alleged to have been defective, and without admitting
14 that it did so or that any product was defective, Defendant provided such products to distributors
15 or other intermediaries, including Plaintiff’s employers, who were knowledgeable, informed and
16 sophisticated concerning the use of the products and the alleged risks to the health of ultimate
17 users, such as Plaintiff, from the use of the products.
18 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred under Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., (2008)
20 43 Cal. 4th 56, because Plaintiff and/or his employers are sophisticated users.
21 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 No conduct by or attributable to Defendant was the cause in fact or the proximate cause of
23 the damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiff, nor a substantial factor in bringing about said
24 damages.
25 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 Any exposure of Plaintiff to Defendant’s products was so minimal as to be insufficient to
27 establish by a reasonable degree of probability that any such product caused any alleged injury,
28 damage, or loss to Plaintiff.
MORGAN, LEWIS & -3-
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS
1 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 This Defendant’s products were not a substantial factor in bringing about the injuries and
3 damages complained of by Plaintiff, and, therefore, Defendant may not be held liable to Plaintiff
4 as alleged.
5 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 That any and all events and happenings in connection with the allegations contained in
7 Plaintiff’s Complaint and the resulting injuries and damages, if any, referred to therein, were
8 proximately caused and contributed to by the negligence of the Plaintiff, thereby barring or
9 reducing Plaintiff’s recovery herein.
10 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 Any loss, injury or damage to Plaintiff was proximately caused or contributed to by the
12 negligent or other tortious acts, omissions, conduct, or products of persons, entities or parties
13 other than Defendant, and that each, any, and all damages recoverable by Plaintiff must be
14 diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to said other persons, entities or
15 parties, and there must be apportioned among all such persons, entities, and parties the amount of
16 damages attributed to them as an offset against damages, if any, awarded against Defendant.
17 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 Any loss, injury, or damage, if any, incurred by Plaintiff was the result of superseding or
19 intervening causes arising from the negligent or willful acts or omissions of other parties which
20 Defendant neither controlled nor had the right to control, and that said loss, injury or damage was
21 not proximately or legally caused by any act, omission, or other conduct of Defendant.
22 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 If Plaintiff sustained any injury or illness attributable to the use of any products and/or
24 equipment manufactured, sold, or supplied by Defendant, which allegations are expressly denied,
25 the injuries were solely caused by and attributable to the unreasonable and improper use which
26 was made of said products and/or equipment, and each of them, by other persons, entities, or
27 parties whom Defendant neither controlled nor had the right to control.
28 ///
MORGAN, LEWIS & -4-
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS
1 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 The product(s) involved was materially altered or changed by a party or parties other than
3 and without the permission of Defendant, its employees, servants, or other agents, and such
4 alteration or change created the alleged defect, if any, which was the proximate or legal cause of
5 Plaintiff’s injuries or damages, if any.
6 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 The state of the medical, scientific, and industrial knowledge and practice was at all
8 material times such that Defendant neither breached any alleged duty owed Plaintiff, nor knew,
9 nor could have known, that its products presented a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff in the
10 normal and expected use of such products.
11 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 Any products, substances, and/or equipment manufactured, formulated, sold or supplied
13 by Defendant were made consistent with the state of the art and all health and safety statutes and
14 regulations applicable to said products, substances, and/or equipment at the time of their
15 manufacture, sale, formulation, or supply.
16 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 The products, substances, and/or equipment referred to in the Complaint were properly
18 designed and manufactured, and safe for the purpose intended. Said products, substances, and/or
19 equipment were modified, altered, misused, abused, and/or improperly maintained by Plaintiff or
20 others, and said conduct was not reasonably foreseeable to Defendant and proximately caused or
21 contributed to the injuries, losses, and damages complained of, if any, thus barring Plaintiff’s
22 recovery herein.
23 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 The asbestos-containing products, if any, for which Defendant had legal responsibility
25 were installed, labeled, assembled, serviced, supplied, manufactured, designed, packaged,
26 supplied, marketed, and/or sold in accordance with contract specifications imposed by its co-
27 defendants, by the U.S. Government, by Plaintiff’s employers, and/or by third parties yet to be
28 identified.
MORGAN, LEWIS & -5-
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS
1 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred under
3 the government contractor defense.
4 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein, which are admittedly based
6 upon a lack of identification of the manufacturer(s) and/or supplier(s) of the alleged injury-
7 causing product(s), fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that Plaintiff has
8 asserted a claim for relief which, if granted, would contravene Defendant’s constitutional rights to
9 substantive and procedural due process of law as preserved for Defendant by the Fourteenth
10 Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article I section 7, of the Constitution of the
11 State of California.
12 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred under O’Neil v. Crane Co., (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335
14 and Taylor v. Elliot Turbomachinery Co., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564, among other cases,
15 because Plaintiff has not pleaded and cannot show that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-
16 containing products that were manufactured, sold or supplied by Defendant or that were original
17 to any equipment alleged to be manufactured, sold or supplied by Defendant.
18 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, if any, in that they failed to use reasonable
20 diligence in caring for Plaintiff’s injuries and reasonable means to prevent their aggravation or to
21 accomplish their healing.
22 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 Plaintiff failed to give Defendant reasonably prompt notice of the breaches of warranty, if
24 any, alleged in the Complaint.
25 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 Plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Defendant and said lack of privity bars
27 Plaintiff’s recovery herein upon any theory of warranty.
28 ///
MORGAN, LEWIS & -6-
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS
1 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 Plaintiff herein has failed to join indispensable parties (California Code of Civil Procedure
3 section 389) such that the Complaint is defective, and Plaintiff is thereby precluded from any
4 recovery whatsoever as prayed for herein.
5 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 To the extent the Complaint asserts Defendant’s alleged “alternative,” “market share,” or
7 “enterprise” liability, the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
8 against Defendant.
9 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein fail to state facts sufficient
11 to constitute a cause of action against Defendant in that Plaintiff has failed to join a substantial
12 market share of the producers of the product or products to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed.
13 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 Defendant did not and does not have a substantial percentage of the market for the
15 asbestos-containing products that allegedly caused Plaintiff’s injuries. Therefore, Defendant may
16 not be held liable to Plaintiff based on Defendant’s alleged percentage share of the applicable
17 market.
18 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 Plaintiffs’ alleged cause of action for loss of consortium against Defendant does not state
20 facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, including, without limitation, because any
21 purported asbestos exposure allegedly caused by Defendant occurred before Plaintiffs’ marriage.
22 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 Plaintiff has no standing or right to sue for fraud and conspiracy, breach of warranty,
24 deceit, or any cause of action under California Civil Code sections 1708-1710, and therefore each
25 such cause of action in the Complaint, if any, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
26 action against this Defendant.
27 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
28 Fraud and conspiracy do not constitute a separate and distinct form of damages from
MORGAN, LEWIS & -7-
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS
1 general damages. Therefore, the prayer for fraud and conspiracy in addition to general damages
2 does not sufficiently support or constitute a separate claim for damages against this Defendant,
3 but is simply cumulative and included in general damages.
4 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 Plaintiff’s alleged cause of action seeking punitive damages against Defendant, if any,
6 does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this Defendant.
7 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 Plaintiff’s claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, is barred by the due process
9 clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
10 THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 Plaintiff’s claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, is barred by the Eighth
12 Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth
13 Amendment, prohibiting the imposition of excessive fines.
14 FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 Plaintiff’s claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, is barred by the “double
16 jeopardy” clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the
17 States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
18 FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 To the extent that these words purportedly apply to Defendant, which Defendant denies,
20 the Complaint does not state sufficient facts constituting “fraud,” “oppression,” or “malice,” as
21 these terms are used in California Civil Code section 3294.
22 FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 Defendant alleges that California Civil Code Section 3294, et seq. violates the California
24 and/or the United States Constitutions because, among other things, it violates the due process
25 clauses and the equal protection clauses thereof, respectively; it is void because it is vague and
26 ambiguous; it constitutes an undue burden on interstate commerce; and it violates the Eighth
27 Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that, therefore, Plaintiff is barred from any
28 recovery thereunder.
MORGAN, LEWIS & -8-
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS
1 FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 If Defendant is responsible to Plaintiff, which responsibility is expressly denied,
3 Defendant shall be liable to Plaintiff only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to
4 each defendant in direct proportion to each defendant’s percentage of fault, if any. (California
5 Civil Code sections 1431, et seq.).
6 FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 As between Plaintiff and Defendant, the law applicable to this action is the law as it
8 existed during the period Defendant engaged, if at all, in the manufacture, sale, or supply of
9 asbestos-containing products to which the Plaintiff claim exposure. It is unlawful, inequitable,
10 and in violation of Defendant’s contractual, statutory, and constitutional rights to apply principles
11 of law other than or in a manner different from those which existed for the period in which
12 Defendant manufactured, sold, or supplied products to which Plaintiff claim exposure.
13 FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 Defendant denies any and all liability to the extent that Plaintiff asserts Defendant’s
15 alleged liability as a successor-in-interest, successor-in-business, successor-in-product line, or a
16 portion thereof; assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in product line, or a
17 portion thereof; parent, alter ego, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial
18 owner of or member in an entity researching, studying, manufacturing, fabricating, designing,
19 labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing,
20 installing, contracting, or installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, re-branding,
21 manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising a certain substance, the generic name of
22 which is asbestos.
23 FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged in the Complaint
25 because the Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein against Defendant are
26 barred by the provisions of California Labor Code sections 3600, et seq.
27 FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
28 At the time and place of the happening of the occurrences and injuries alleged in the
MORGAN, LEWIS & -9-
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS
1 Complaint, and all times material thereto, Plaintiff was employed by various employers, the
2 names of which are unknown to this Defendant, and working within the course and scope of their
3 employment. Said employers and Plaintiff were subject to the provisions of the Workers’
4 Compensation Act of the State of California and Plaintiff was entitled to receive Workers’
5 Compensation benefits from his employers. Certain sums have been paid to or on behalf of
6 Plaintiff herein under the applicable provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California. Said
7 employers and each of them were negligent, careless, and at fault in and about the matters
8 referred to in the Complaint and such negligence, carelessness, and fault proximately and
9 concurrently contributed to and caused the happening of the incidents complained of by Plaintiff,
10 if there were any. By these premises, any judgment rendered in favor of Plaintiff herein must be
11 reduced by any benefits or payments made or to be made to Plaintiff by Plaintiff’s employers or
12 their compensation carrier(s) under Witt vs. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57 [17 Cal.Rptr. 369, 360
13 P.2d 641].
14 FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 Plaintiff has received, or in the future may receive, Workers’ Compensation benefits from
16 Defendant under the Labor Code of the State of California as a consequence of the alleged
17 industrial injury referred to in the Complaint, and, in the event Plaintiff is awarded damages
18 against Defendant, Defendant claims a credit against this award to the extent that Defendant is
19 barred from enforcing its rights to reimbursement for Workers’ Compensation benefits that
20 Plaintiff has received or may in the future receive.
21 Each denial of Plaintiff’s allegations, together with each of Defendant’s allegations,
22 defenses and factual contentions, all as set forth herein, are hereby specifically identified as
23 denials, allegations, defenses and factual contentions subject to reasonable opportunity for further
24 investigation and discovery, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(3)(4).
25 WHEREFORE, this Defendant prays that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed and that
26 Plaintiff takes nothing by virtue of this Complaint on file herein, for its costs of suit herein
27 incurred, for appropriate credits and setoffs arising out of any payment of Workers’
28 ///
MORGAN, LEWIS & - 10 -
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS
1 Compensation benefits alleged herein, and for any other and further relief as the Court may deem
2 proper.
3 Dated: July 29, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
4 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
5
6 By
Marisa R. Chaves
7 One Market
Spear Street Tower
8 San Francisco, California 94105-1596
+1.415.442.1000
9 SBN 236533
10 Attorneys for Defendant
JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS & - 11 -
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS
1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
2 Mark Owens and Debora Owens v. Crane Co., et al.
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-20-276843
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 July 29, 2020, I served a copy of the within documents:
7 DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND
8 LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – 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
Executed on July 29, 2020, at San Francisco, California.
14
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
15 is true and correct.
16
17
18 Faye Geneviève Miranda
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
DB1/ 115045575.1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
Preview
1 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP JOSEPH DUFFY, Bar No. 241854 2 joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com ELECTRONICALLY AMY J. TALARICO, Bar No. 209112 3 amy.talarico@morganlewis.com FILED Superior Court of California, 4 MARISA R. CHAVES, Bar No. 236533 County of San Francisco marisa.chaves@morganlewis.com 07/29/2020 5 One Market Clerk of the Court BY: MADONNA CARANTO Spear Street Tower Deputy Clerk 6 San Francisco, California 94105-1596 7 Telephone: +1.415.442.1000 Facsimile: +1.415.442.1001 8 Attorneys for Defendant 9 JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 13 14 MARK OWENS and DEBORA OWENS, Case No. CGC-20-276843 15 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO 16 vs. PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF 17 CRANE CO., et al., CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS 18 Defendants. Complaint Filed: June 12, 2020 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS 1 JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. (“Defendant” or “JOHNSON CONTROLS”), answers 2 Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Personal Injury and Loss of Consortium – Asbestos (“Complaint”) as 3 follows: 4 Under the provisions of Section 431.30(d), California Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant 5 denies each and every allegation of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the whole thereof, and denies that 6 Plaintiffs have been damaged in any sum or amount whatsoever, or at all. 7 Whenever “Plaintiff” or “Plaintiffs” is used in this Answer, that reference embraces each 8 Plaintiff individually as well as collectively, plus the words “each of them.” 9 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each of its purported causes of action alleged therein fail to state 11 facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. 12 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the 14 applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to, Code of Civil Procedure sections 15 337.15, 340.2, 343 and 361, and California Commercial Code section 2725. 16 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 Plaintiff is barred from recovery herein by virtue of the application of the Doctrine of 18 Laches (inexcusable delay and prejudice to Defendant). 19 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the 21 equitable Doctrine of Unclean Hands. 22 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the 24 equitable Doctrine of Waiver. 25 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the 27 equitable Doctrine of Estoppel. 28 /// MORGAN, LEWIS & -2- BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS 1 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of any then-existing conditions alleged in the 3 Complaint with full knowledge thereof, thereby proximately causing the injuries and damages, if 4 any, complained of by Plaintiff is thereby barred from recovery herein. 5 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 Plaintiff acknowledged, ratified, consented to, and/or acquiesced in the alleged acts or 7 omissions, if any, of this Defendant, thus barring Plaintiff from any relief as prayed for herein. 8 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 Plaintiff was advised, informed, and/or warned of any potential hazards and/or dangers, if 10 there were any, associated with the normal or foreseeable use, handling, and storage of the 11 products, substances, and/or equipment described in the Complaint. 12 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 If Defendant provided the products alleged to have been defective, and without admitting 14 that it did so or that any product was defective, Defendant provided such products to distributors 15 or other intermediaries, including Plaintiff’s employers, who were knowledgeable, informed and 16 sophisticated concerning the use of the products and the alleged risks to the health of ultimate 17 users, such as Plaintiff, from the use of the products. 18 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred under Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., (2008) 20 43 Cal. 4th 56, because Plaintiff and/or his employers are sophisticated users. 21 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 No conduct by or attributable to Defendant was the cause in fact or the proximate cause of 23 the damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiff, nor a substantial factor in bringing about said 24 damages. 25 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 Any exposure of Plaintiff to Defendant’s products was so minimal as to be insufficient to 27 establish by a reasonable degree of probability that any such product caused any alleged injury, 28 damage, or loss to Plaintiff. MORGAN, LEWIS & -3- BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS 1 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 This Defendant’s products were not a substantial factor in bringing about the injuries and 3 damages complained of by Plaintiff, and, therefore, Defendant may not be held liable to Plaintiff 4 as alleged. 5 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 That any and all events and happenings in connection with the allegations contained in 7 Plaintiff’s Complaint and the resulting injuries and damages, if any, referred to therein, were 8 proximately caused and contributed to by the negligence of the Plaintiff, thereby barring or 9 reducing Plaintiff’s recovery herein. 10 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 Any loss, injury or damage to Plaintiff was proximately caused or contributed to by the 12 negligent or other tortious acts, omissions, conduct, or products of persons, entities or parties 13 other than Defendant, and that each, any, and all damages recoverable by Plaintiff must be 14 diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to said other persons, entities or 15 parties, and there must be apportioned among all such persons, entities, and parties the amount of 16 damages attributed to them as an offset against damages, if any, awarded against Defendant. 17 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 Any loss, injury, or damage, if any, incurred by Plaintiff was the result of superseding or 19 intervening causes arising from the negligent or willful acts or omissions of other parties which 20 Defendant neither controlled nor had the right to control, and that said loss, injury or damage was 21 not proximately or legally caused by any act, omission, or other conduct of Defendant. 22 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 If Plaintiff sustained any injury or illness attributable to the use of any products and/or 24 equipment manufactured, sold, or supplied by Defendant, which allegations are expressly denied, 25 the injuries were solely caused by and attributable to the unreasonable and improper use which 26 was made of said products and/or equipment, and each of them, by other persons, entities, or 27 parties whom Defendant neither controlled nor had the right to control. 28 /// MORGAN, LEWIS & -4- BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS 1 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 The product(s) involved was materially altered or changed by a party or parties other than 3 and without the permission of Defendant, its employees, servants, or other agents, and such 4 alteration or change created the alleged defect, if any, which was the proximate or legal cause of 5 Plaintiff’s injuries or damages, if any. 6 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 The state of the medical, scientific, and industrial knowledge and practice was at all 8 material times such that Defendant neither breached any alleged duty owed Plaintiff, nor knew, 9 nor could have known, that its products presented a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff in the 10 normal and expected use of such products. 11 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 Any products, substances, and/or equipment manufactured, formulated, sold or supplied 13 by Defendant were made consistent with the state of the art and all health and safety statutes and 14 regulations applicable to said products, substances, and/or equipment at the time of their 15 manufacture, sale, formulation, or supply. 16 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 The products, substances, and/or equipment referred to in the Complaint were properly 18 designed and manufactured, and safe for the purpose intended. Said products, substances, and/or 19 equipment were modified, altered, misused, abused, and/or improperly maintained by Plaintiff or 20 others, and said conduct was not reasonably foreseeable to Defendant and proximately caused or 21 contributed to the injuries, losses, and damages complained of, if any, thus barring Plaintiff’s 22 recovery herein. 23 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 The asbestos-containing products, if any, for which Defendant had legal responsibility 25 were installed, labeled, assembled, serviced, supplied, manufactured, designed, packaged, 26 supplied, marketed, and/or sold in accordance with contract specifications imposed by its co- 27 defendants, by the U.S. Government, by Plaintiff’s employers, and/or by third parties yet to be 28 identified. MORGAN, LEWIS & -5- BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS 1 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred under 3 the government contractor defense. 4 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein, which are admittedly based 6 upon a lack of identification of the manufacturer(s) and/or supplier(s) of the alleged injury- 7 causing product(s), fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that Plaintiff has 8 asserted a claim for relief which, if granted, would contravene Defendant’s constitutional rights to 9 substantive and procedural due process of law as preserved for Defendant by the Fourteenth 10 Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article I section 7, of the Constitution of the 11 State of California. 12 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred under O’Neil v. Crane Co., (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335 14 and Taylor v. Elliot Turbomachinery Co., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564, among other cases, 15 because Plaintiff has not pleaded and cannot show that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos- 16 containing products that were manufactured, sold or supplied by Defendant or that were original 17 to any equipment alleged to be manufactured, sold or supplied by Defendant. 18 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, if any, in that they failed to use reasonable 20 diligence in caring for Plaintiff’s injuries and reasonable means to prevent their aggravation or to 21 accomplish their healing. 22 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 Plaintiff failed to give Defendant reasonably prompt notice of the breaches of warranty, if 24 any, alleged in the Complaint. 25 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 Plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Defendant and said lack of privity bars 27 Plaintiff’s recovery herein upon any theory of warranty. 28 /// MORGAN, LEWIS & -6- BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS 1 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 Plaintiff herein has failed to join indispensable parties (California Code of Civil Procedure 3 section 389) such that the Complaint is defective, and Plaintiff is thereby precluded from any 4 recovery whatsoever as prayed for herein. 5 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 To the extent the Complaint asserts Defendant’s alleged “alternative,” “market share,” or 7 “enterprise” liability, the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action 8 against Defendant. 9 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 Plaintiff’s Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein fail to state facts sufficient 11 to constitute a cause of action against Defendant in that Plaintiff has failed to join a substantial 12 market share of the producers of the product or products to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed. 13 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 Defendant did not and does not have a substantial percentage of the market for the 15 asbestos-containing products that allegedly caused Plaintiff’s injuries. Therefore, Defendant may 16 not be held liable to Plaintiff based on Defendant’s alleged percentage share of the applicable 17 market. 18 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 Plaintiffs’ alleged cause of action for loss of consortium against Defendant does not state 20 facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, including, without limitation, because any 21 purported asbestos exposure allegedly caused by Defendant occurred before Plaintiffs’ marriage. 22 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 Plaintiff has no standing or right to sue for fraud and conspiracy, breach of warranty, 24 deceit, or any cause of action under California Civil Code sections 1708-1710, and therefore each 25 such cause of action in the Complaint, if any, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of 26 action against this Defendant. 27 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28 Fraud and conspiracy do not constitute a separate and distinct form of damages from MORGAN, LEWIS & -7- BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS 1 general damages. Therefore, the prayer for fraud and conspiracy in addition to general damages 2 does not sufficiently support or constitute a separate claim for damages against this Defendant, 3 but is simply cumulative and included in general damages. 4 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5 Plaintiff’s alleged cause of action seeking punitive damages against Defendant, if any, 6 does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this Defendant. 7 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 Plaintiff’s claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, is barred by the due process 9 clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 10 THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 Plaintiff’s claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, is barred by the Eighth 12 Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth 13 Amendment, prohibiting the imposition of excessive fines. 14 FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 Plaintiff’s claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, is barred by the “double 16 jeopardy” clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the 17 States through the Fourteenth Amendment. 18 FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 To the extent that these words purportedly apply to Defendant, which Defendant denies, 20 the Complaint does not state sufficient facts constituting “fraud,” “oppression,” or “malice,” as 21 these terms are used in California Civil Code section 3294. 22 FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 Defendant alleges that California Civil Code Section 3294, et seq. violates the California 24 and/or the United States Constitutions because, among other things, it violates the due process 25 clauses and the equal protection clauses thereof, respectively; it is void because it is vague and 26 ambiguous; it constitutes an undue burden on interstate commerce; and it violates the Eighth 27 Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that, therefore, Plaintiff is barred from any 28 recovery thereunder. MORGAN, LEWIS & -8- BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS 1 FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 If Defendant is responsible to Plaintiff, which responsibility is expressly denied, 3 Defendant shall be liable to Plaintiff only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to 4 each defendant in direct proportion to each defendant’s percentage of fault, if any. (California 5 Civil Code sections 1431, et seq.). 6 FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 As between Plaintiff and Defendant, the law applicable to this action is the law as it 8 existed during the period Defendant engaged, if at all, in the manufacture, sale, or supply of 9 asbestos-containing products to which the Plaintiff claim exposure. It is unlawful, inequitable, 10 and in violation of Defendant’s contractual, statutory, and constitutional rights to apply principles 11 of law other than or in a manner different from those which existed for the period in which 12 Defendant manufactured, sold, or supplied products to which Plaintiff claim exposure. 13 FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 Defendant denies any and all liability to the extent that Plaintiff asserts Defendant’s 15 alleged liability as a successor-in-interest, successor-in-business, successor-in-product line, or a 16 portion thereof; assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in product line, or a 17 portion thereof; parent, alter ego, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial 18 owner of or member in an entity researching, studying, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, 19 labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, 20 installing, contracting, or installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, re-branding, 21 manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising a certain substance, the generic name of 22 which is asbestos. 23 FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged in the Complaint 25 because the Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein against Defendant are 26 barred by the provisions of California Labor Code sections 3600, et seq. 27 FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28 At the time and place of the happening of the occurrences and injuries alleged in the MORGAN, LEWIS & -9- BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS 1 Complaint, and all times material thereto, Plaintiff was employed by various employers, the 2 names of which are unknown to this Defendant, and working within the course and scope of their 3 employment. Said employers and Plaintiff were subject to the provisions of the Workers’ 4 Compensation Act of the State of California and Plaintiff was entitled to receive Workers’ 5 Compensation benefits from his employers. Certain sums have been paid to or on behalf of 6 Plaintiff herein under the applicable provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California. Said 7 employers and each of them were negligent, careless, and at fault in and about the matters 8 referred to in the Complaint and such negligence, carelessness, and fault proximately and 9 concurrently contributed to and caused the happening of the incidents complained of by Plaintiff, 10 if there were any. By these premises, any judgment rendered in favor of Plaintiff herein must be 11 reduced by any benefits or payments made or to be made to Plaintiff by Plaintiff’s employers or 12 their compensation carrier(s) under Witt vs. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57 [17 Cal.Rptr. 369, 360 13 P.2d 641]. 14 FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 Plaintiff has received, or in the future may receive, Workers’ Compensation benefits from 16 Defendant under the Labor Code of the State of California as a consequence of the alleged 17 industrial injury referred to in the Complaint, and, in the event Plaintiff is awarded damages 18 against Defendant, Defendant claims a credit against this award to the extent that Defendant is 19 barred from enforcing its rights to reimbursement for Workers’ Compensation benefits that 20 Plaintiff has received or may in the future receive. 21 Each denial of Plaintiff’s allegations, together with each of Defendant’s allegations, 22 defenses and factual contentions, all as set forth herein, are hereby specifically identified as 23 denials, allegations, defenses and factual contentions subject to reasonable opportunity for further 24 investigation and discovery, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(3)(4). 25 WHEREFORE, this Defendant prays that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed and that 26 Plaintiff takes nothing by virtue of this Complaint on file herein, for its costs of suit herein 27 incurred, for appropriate credits and setoffs arising out of any payment of Workers’ 28 /// MORGAN, LEWIS & - 10 - BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS 1 Compensation benefits alleged herein, and for any other and further relief as the Court may deem 2 proper. 3 Dated: July 29, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 4 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 5 6 By Marisa R. Chaves 7 One Market Spear Street Tower 8 San Francisco, California 94105-1596 +1.415.442.1000 9 SBN 236533 10 Attorneys for Defendant JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & - 11 - BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT DB1/ 115045575.1 FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – ASBESTOS 1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION 2 Mark Owens and Debora Owens v. Crane Co., et al. San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-20-276843 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 July 29, 2020, I served a copy of the within documents: 7 DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND 8 LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – 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 Executed on July 29, 2020, at San Francisco, California. 14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above 15 is true and correct. 16 17 18 Faye Geneviève Miranda 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO DB1/ 115045575.1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION