On May 20, 2009 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Juelch, Joyce, Juelch Sr, Norman, and 3M Company, 84 Lumber Company, 84 Lumber Company, A Limited Partnership, All Asbestos Defendants, Allis-Chalmers Corporation Product Liability Trust, Asbestos Defendants, Cbs Corporation, A Delaware Corporation, F K A, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Consolidated Insulation, Inc., Csk Auto, Inc., Dillingham Construction N.A., Inc., Does 1-8500, Douglass Insulation Company, Inc., Garlock Sealing Technologies, Llc, General Electric Company, Genuine Parts Company, Hamilton Materials, Inc., J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Metalclad Insulation Corporation, Oscar E. Erickson, Inc., Pacific Gas And Electric Company, Pacipic Bell Telephone Company, Parker Hannifin Corporation, Quintec Industries, Inc., Redwood Plumbing Co., Inc., Santa Fe Braun, Inc., Sequoia Ventures Inc., Shell Oil Company, Thomas Dee Engineering Company, Timec Company, Inc., Tosco Refining Company, Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, Union Oil Company Of California, Unocal Corporation, for ASBESTOS in the District Court of San Francisco County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
GC BS NM A NW BB BW NHN ROM RM MN NN Rea aD Ww BRB Ww NHN = SF Dw DH HD B BDH = S 28 McKenna LONG & ALbRIBCE LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO LISA L. OBERG (BAR NO. 120139) DANIEL B. HOYE (BAR NO. 139683) ALECIA E. COTTON (BAR NO, 252777) MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP ELECTRONICALLY 101 California Street FILED 4 lst Floor Superior Court of California, San Francisco, CA 94111 County of San Francisco Telephone: (415) 267-4000 Facsimile: (415) 267-4198 APR 13 2010 Attorneys for Defendant ee se vabuty Clerk METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JOYCE JUELCH and Case No. CGC-09-275212 NORMAN JUELCH, SR., DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN EIMINE TO EXCLUDE MENTION OR REFERENCE CONCERNING ABSENCE OF CORPORATE Plaintiffs, REPRESENTATIVE At TRIAL [MIL 15] v. TRIAL Date: APRIL 5, 2010 DEepr.: 604 ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, (BP), ef al, JUDGE: HIONORABLE MARLA J. MILLER Defendants. The above-named Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) hereby moves this Court in limine before trial and selection of the jury for an Order indicating that plaintiffs should be prohibited from mentioning that Defendant does not have a corporate representative present at the trial of this case. Plaintiffs should be prohibited from mentioning whether Defendant has a corporate representative present at the trial of this case. The presence or absence of a corporate representative has no bearing on the issue of liability and no tendency to prove any material fact, and accordingly, is not relevant. See Duff v. Cavalier (J989}) 10 Cal App 3d 1514 [259 Cal Rptr, 162.178]. -1- DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE MENTION OR REFERENCE CONCERNING ABSENCE OF CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE AT TRIAL [MIL 15) SP.27418547.1oO OD OD NM KH Rh SB WH NR YP NM BRB NM BRB BD Re me ee mete SOS WE OH | 5 FB AA aA ESHA 28 MCKENNA LONG & ALOKIDGE LLP ATTORNEYS AT Law SAW FRANCISCO Further, any reference to the absence of a corporate representative at the defense table would improperly suggest that the jury may determine liability based on sympathy with the plaintiffs and prejudice against the corporate defendant. Such evidence has no probative value, yet it might create a substantial danger of undue prejudice, and therefore should be excluded. /. Dated: April 5, 2010 MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP ii By: \ (us C. | han “™ Lisa L. OBERG DANIEL B. HOYE ALEcIA E. COTTON Attorneys for Defendant, METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION -2- DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE MENTION OR REFERENCE CONCERNING ABSENCE OF CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE AT TRIAL [MIL 15} SF:27418547.4