On January 30, 2009 a
REMITTITUR REVERSED (A131068 DIV 2)
was filed
involving a dispute between
Conte, Anthony,
and
3M Company,
All Asbestos Defendants See Scanned Documents,
Asbestos Defendants B*P As Reflected On Reflected,
Bnsf Railway Company,
Bucyrus International Inc,
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation,
Cbs Corporation, A Delaware Corporation,
Chrysler Llc,
Does 1-800, Inclusive,
Does 1-8500,
Garlock Sealing Technologies Llc,
General Electric Company,
Hennessy Industries Inc.,
Honeywell International, Inc.,
Honeywell International Inc., F K A Alliedsignal,,
J.T. Thorpe, Inc.,
J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc.,
Macarthur Company,
Owens-Illinois, Inc.,
Parker Hannifin Corporation,
Plant Insulation Company,
Quintec Industries, Inc.,
The Budd Company,
Union Pacific Railroad Company,
Viacom And Not The Claims Against Cbs Corporation,
Viacom, Inc.,
Western Asbestos Company,
Western Macarthur Company,
for civil
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
WOU MOA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jul-11-2012 11:50 am
Case Number: CGC-09-275046
Filing Date: Jul-11-2012 11:50
Filed by: MELISSA DONG
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03682722
REMITTITUR
ANTHONY CONTE VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS B*P AS REFLECTED ON
REFLECTED et al
001003682722
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
350 MCALLISTER STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
DIVISION 2
Office of the County Clerk
San Francisco County Superior Court - Main
Attention: Civil Appeals Fi! LE
400 McAllister Street, Ist Floor jan Francisco Cavnty BR
San Francisco, CA 94102 JUL 1-2 2012
CLERK i: CUURI
ANTHONY CONTE, BY: sees
Plaintiff and Appellant, pputy Cle
vy.
HENNESSY [INDUSTRIES INC.,
Defendant and Respondent.
A131068
San Francisco County No. CGC09275046
* * REMITTITUR * *
1, Diana Herbert, Clerk of the Court of Appeal of the State of California, for the First Appellate
District, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of the original opinion or decision
entered in the above-entitled cause on July 9, 2012 and that this opinion has now become final.
__ Appellant ___ Respondent to recover costs
___Each party to bear own costs
sts are not awarded in this proceeding
See decision for costs determination
Witness my hand and the Seal of the Court affixed at my office this JUL - 9 2012
Very truly yours,
Diana Herbert
Clerk of / Court
Ut tau,
Deputy Clerk
P.O, Report; U “"
Marsden Transcript:
Boxed Trajiscripts:
Exhibits:
None of the above:
remlrropostD) ORDER [13,6 6
This Court has considered the motion for stipulated reversal and
dismissal of this appeal and the supporting papers and has been afforded the
opportunity to review the merits of the appeal. This Court finds that there
is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will
be adversely affected by the reversal, and that the reasons of the parties for
requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result
from the nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of
stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement.
It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment appealed from be and is
hereby reversed and remanded to the trial court with directions to vacate
and set aside the judgment as to the strict liability and negligence causes of
action, that the remitter shall issue forthwith, and that each party shall bear
its own attorney’s fees and costs on appeal except that the $655 filing fee
shall be awarded to Appellant.
JUL - 9 2072
Dated: » 2012
Presiding Justice
KLINE, P J.
Court of Appeal First Appellate District
FILED
JUL ~9 2012
Diana rlorbart, Clark
by ee Bepity Cleric
ZRCH/056634/22825196v.1
Document Filed Date
July 11, 2012
Case Filing Date
January 30, 2009
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
WOU MOA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jul-11-2012 11:50 am Case Number: CGC-09-275046 Filing Date: Jul-11-2012 11:50 Filed by: MELISSA DONG Juke Box: 001 Image: 03682722 REMITTITUR ANTHONY CONTE VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS B*P AS REFLECTED ON REFLECTED et al 001003682722 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT 350 MCALLISTER STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 DIVISION 2 Office of the County Clerk San Francisco County Superior Court - Main Attention: Civil Appeals Fi! LE 400 McAllister Street, Ist Floor jan Francisco Cavnty BR San Francisco, CA 94102 JUL 1-2 2012 CLERK i: CUURI ANTHONY CONTE, BY: sees Plaintiff and Appellant, pputy Cle vy. HENNESSY [INDUSTRIES INC., Defendant and Respondent. A131068 San Francisco County No. CGC09275046 * * REMITTITUR * * 1, Diana Herbert, Clerk of the Court of Appeal of the State of California, for the First Appellate District, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of the original opinion or decision entered in the above-entitled cause on July 9, 2012 and that this opinion has now become final. __ Appellant ___ Respondent to recover costs ___Each party to bear own costs sts are not awarded in this proceeding See decision for costs determination Witness my hand and the Seal of the Court affixed at my office this JUL - 9 2012 Very truly yours, Diana Herbert Clerk of / Court Ut tau, Deputy Clerk P.O, Report; U “" Marsden Transcript: Boxed Trajiscripts: Exhibits: None of the above: remlrropostD) ORDER [13,6 6 This Court has considered the motion for stipulated reversal and dismissal of this appeal and the supporting papers and has been afforded the opportunity to review the merits of the appeal. This Court finds that there is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal, and that the reasons of the parties for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement. It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment appealed from be and is hereby reversed and remanded to the trial court with directions to vacate and set aside the judgment as to the strict liability and negligence causes of action, that the remitter shall issue forthwith, and that each party shall bear its own attorney’s fees and costs on appeal except that the $655 filing fee shall be awarded to Appellant. JUL - 9 2072 Dated: » 2012 Presiding Justice KLINE, P J. Court of Appeal First Appellate District FILED JUL ~9 2012 Diana rlorbart, Clark by ee Bepity Cleric ZRCH/056634/22825196v.1