arrow left
arrow right
  • RUFUS ALEXANDER VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RUFUS ALEXANDER VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RUFUS ALEXANDER VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RUFUS ALEXANDER VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RUFUS ALEXANDER VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RUFUS ALEXANDER VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
						
                                

Preview

Gordon & Rees LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 B WwW 8. MITCHELL KAPLAN (SBN: 95065) CHRISTOPHER D. STRUNK (SBN: 214110) BETHANY A. STAHLEY (SBN: 209421) ELECTRONICALLY JAMES K. HOLDER (SBN: 267843) FILED GORDON & REES LLP Superior Court of California, Embarcadero Center West County of San Francisco 275 Battery Street, Suite 2006 San Francisco, CA 94111 NOV 19 2010 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 BY. GUDISH NGNES Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 Deputy Clerk Atiorncys for Defendant ‘THE BUDD COMPANY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO RUFUS ALEXANDER, CASE NO. CGC-08-274719 STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION IN LIEU OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT THE BUDD COMPANY’S MOTION FOR MOTION OF JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Plaintill, ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) Date. December 8, 2010 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept: 220 Judge: — Hon, Harold Kahn Defendants. Ne Nt et Ne Ne Se! Ste! et Sa Sh et Complaint Filed: July 1, 2008 Trial Date None Set we TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that as of November 12,2010, Defendant The Budd Company, has received no oppositions to its Motion of Judgment on the Pleadings on November 18, 2010. Cade of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b) mandates that any opposition to these motions had to have been filed and served by November 4, 2010, nine court days before the hearing. No such oppositions have been received. -l- STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION IN VIEU OF REPLY2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 , il 3285 1 gies 13 2cis bee 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TREDIO57 1 [OS793050%. 8 Defendant is receipt from correspondence from Berry & Berry indicating that plaintiff was in an automobile accident. However, plaintiff is undertaking to represent himself in this litigation. Plaintiff has made no effort to seck to continue defendant’s motion, has made no effort to contact moving party to request an extension, and has failed to seek proper relief from this Court. Defendant is entitled to have its motions heard — and granted — accordingly. Accordingly, to the extent that the relief requested has not been opposed by plaintifl, defendant THE BUDD COMPANY requests that this Court ORDER all reliefs requested in its moving papers, DATED: November 19, 2010 GORDON & REES LLP By: /s/ Christopher D, Strunk CHRISTOPHER D. STRUNK Attorneys for Defendant THE BUDD COMPANY 2 STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TN LIEU OF REPLYfe 28 FRADANSTT ORES. PROOF OF SERVICE 1am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen ycars, and not a party to the within action. My business address is: Gordon & Rees LLP, 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94111. On the date below, | served the document(s) described as follows: STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION EN LIEU OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT THE BUDD COMPANY’S MOTION FOR MOTION OF JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS by having personally delivered via First Legal Support Services messenger the CC] by having p y rg document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) sei forth below. Q by placing true copy(ies) of the document(s) listed above cnclosed in a sealed envelope, at a station designated for collection and processing of envelopes and packages for overnight delivery by FEDEX as part of the ordinary business practices of Gordon & Rees LLP described below, addressed as follows: by transmitting via FACSIMILE the document(s) listed above to the following: by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with posiage thereon fully prepaid, in UNIPED STATES MAIL in the State of California, at San Francisco, addressed as sct forth below, go Tam readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S, Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordmary course of business. | am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE VIA LEXIS NEXIS FILE & SERVE. By sending electronically a true and correct copy thereof to Lexis Nexis File & Serve Ovwwlexisnexis.com/fleandserv) for service on all counsel of record by electronic service pursuant to the Order Mandating Electronic Filing and Service of Asbestos Pleadings and pursuant to CCP § 1010.6 and CRC 206(c). The transmission was reported as complete and without error. Rufus Alexander Plaintiff in Pro Per Tn Pro Per 170 Cashmere Street, Apt. D San Francisco, CA 94124 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is truc and correct. Executed on November 19, 2010, at San Francisep;California, : é Bag [As ate Andrea K. Bean