Motion,Ex Parte: LOUIS CASTAGNA VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                BRAYTON®PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

PO BOX 6169
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169
(AIS) 898-1555

eo we YD RF WN

YN BP NM BP YN NY YY SF FF Fe Ke Fe Be ee
oe MU A A RDN =| SO OAD HH PF WN | SC

GILBERT L, PURCELL, ESQ., S.B. #113603
JAMES P. NEVIN, ESQ., S.B. #220816
BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP

Attorneys at Law ELECTRONICALLY

222 Rush Landing Road FILED
P.O. Box 6169 Superior Court of California,
Novato, California 94948-6169 County of San Francisco

(415) 898-1555 NOV 08 2010

Clerk of the Court
BY: EDNALEEN JAVIER
Deputy Clerk

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
IN RE BRAYTON GROUP 536 ) ASBESTOS
(Lead Case: LOUIS CASTAGNA] ) No. CGC-07-274230
)
Plaintiffs, ) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
} DEFENSE MOTIONS IN LIMINE
vs.
)
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) ) Trial Date: November 5, 2010

Dept.: 505, Hon. John K. Stewart

Plaintiffs hereby move to strike all of the Motions In Limine filed by defendants and for
an order requiring the remaining defendants to resubmit no more than ten total Motions In
Limine on behalf of all remaining defendants.

IL THE COURT HAS THE POWER TO STRIKE ANY PLEADING PURSUANT
TO THE COURT’S INHERENT POWER, BY SUMMARY MEANS, IN
ORDER TO PREVENT FRUSTRATION, BURDEN, ABUSE OR
DISREGARD OF THE COURT PROCESS. {Stafford v. Ballinger (1962) 199
Cal.App.2d. 289, 207]

The Court’s power has been codified in C.C.P. § 436. However, the statutory scheme
contains no provision restricting or abolishing the Court’s inherent power to strike any pleading
or motion before it. Code of Civil Procedure § 436 specifically authorizes the Court to strike
any pleading on an improper matter. The vast majority of the Motions In Limine, probably
99%, are contrary to the law and are in conflict with the Code of Civil Procedure, the Evidence
Code and the California Constitution. Pure and simple, this number of Motions In Limine is
harassment. “Harassing” conduct includes vexatious tactics which, although literally authorized

KAGroup\S 36 cat ike def rile wepd 1 PN
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENSE MOTIONS IN LIMINEby statute or rule, go beyond that which is appropriate under any reasonable standard. [West
| Coast Development v. Reed (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 693, 702.]

i. TO HAVE THE SUFFICIENCY OF A PLEADING, SUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE OR THE EXISTENCE OF TRIABLE ISSUES OF MATERIAL
FACT DECIDED IN THE GUISE OF A MOTION IN LIMINE IS A
PERVERSION OF THE PROCESS.

In asbestos litigation, unlike any other civil litigation before the Courts, defendants have
engaged in an ever expanding practice of misusing and abusing the non-statutory “Motion In

| Limine” as a substitution for non-suits, demurrers, motions for summary judgments and

| premature 402 hearings. In the process, plaintiff’s counsel, is often obligated to respond to one
hundred or more unauthorized and misused attempts to circumvent the Code of Civil Procedure,
the Evidence Code and the plaintiffs work-product privilege. In this case, defendants have
filed an absurd number of Motions In Limine! The Trial Courts are then forced to review or
rule on a mountain of boilerplate motions before any of the backlog of asbestos cases actually
proceeds fo trial.

Trial by Motion In Limine is not the manner in which non-asbestos cases are
litigated. If it is the announced purpose of the Court to bring asbestos litigation into
compliance with general civil litigation, then the Court needs to eliminate or dramatically
restrict the misuse of motions In limine to the areas for which they are legitimate and leave the
remainder of the case to be litigated in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, the
Evidence Code, presentation of evidence, objections to evidence, cross-examination and
rebuttal.

It is rare indeed when a statutorily authorized objection interposed at the appropriate
time at a trial, within the context of that trial, while the witness is on the stand, that the imability
to “un-ring the bell,” is really the motive for making the motion, The Evidence Code and the
Cade of Civil Procedure have given counsel the tools and procedures for the introduction and
objection to evidence in civil trials and a motion in limine is a rare exception, not the rule, in
civil litigation, other than asbestos cases.
tH

KAGrnapaS36ieahoren strike def- mil wp 2 IPN
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENSE MOTIONS IN LIMINE_

Co Me WD He WW

10
Ik
12
13
i4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

One of the elements of a fair trial is the right to offer relevant and competent evidence

on a material issue. Denial of this fundamental right is almost always considered reversible

error, [Guardianship of Waite (1939) 14 Cal.2d. 727, 730; Elkins v. Superior Court (2007) 41
Cal 4th 1337, 1357,] A party’s opportunity to call witnesses to testify and to proffer admissible

evidence is central to having his day in Court. [Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49

Cal. App.4th 659, 677; Elkins v. Superior Court, supra.|

The recent case of Amtower v. Photo Dynamics (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1582, is a clear
and unequivocal expression of the frustration experienced by the Courts of Appeal sanction
“trial by paper, rather than trial by evidence.” The Court declared:

In purpose and effect, the foregoing non-statutory procedures are merely
substitutes for the dispositive motions authorized by statute. Appellate Courts
are becoming increasingly wary of this tactic....[{citations omitted] ‘To have
the sufficiency of a pleading or the existence of triable issues of material fact
decided in the guise of a Motion In Limine is a perversion of the process. The
disadvantages of such shortcuts are obvious. They circumvent procedural
protections provided by statutory motions or by trial on the merits; they risk
blind sighting the non-moving party; and, in some cases, they could infringe on a
litigants right to a jury trial.’ [Cal. Const. Art. I, section 16]. Adherence to the
statutory process would avoid all these risks. Furthermore, these irregular
procedures can result in unnecessary reversals. The risk of reversal arises when
Appellate Courts are required to review a dispositive ruling on an In Limine
Motion as if it were the product of a motion for non-suit after opening statement.
‘[GJranting of a non-suit after an opening statement is a disfavored practice; it
will be upheld only when it is clear that counsel has undertaken to state all the
facts which he expects to prove and it is plainly evident that those facts will not
constitute a cause of action.’... The standard of review in such cases requires that
all inferences and conflicts in the evidence be resolved in favor of the losing
party and against the judgment...In contrast, on appeal from a judgment

ollowing trial, appellate review favors the judgment... Thus, some cases will be
subject to reversal where, had the Trial Court just taken the time to hold a
trial, reversal would not be warranted. [Emphasis added.]

Amiower y. Photo Dynamics (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 152, 154-

195.

CONCLUSION
For plaintiffs’ counsel to oppose all of defendants’ Motions In Limine and for the Court
to review and rule on all of the Motions In Limine is unduly burdensome, harassing, abusive
and a waste of judicial resources. It is within the inherent power of the Court to provide for the
orderly conduct of proceedings before it, including controlling the number and type of Motions
In Limine parties attempt to file before trial. [C.C.P. § 128(a)(3).]

KaGmoapeissouratvotn srke-det-nils wos 3 2EN
PLAINTIFFS: MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENSE MOTIONS IN LIMINECm IN DH FF WN

yb Ney YY LY WV —
BNRERRBRBHEBSEEARARBER AS

It is respectfully submitted that this Court strike all of defendants’ Motions In Limine
and require defendants to make a calculated judgment, within the confines of the law governing
the scope of Motions In Limine, and submit no more than ten Motions In Limine for all of the

remaining defendants.

Dated: Li/5/10 BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP

By: /s/ James P. Nevin
James P. Nevin
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

KAGroupa\S3Ourialunn site def mits. wpd 4 IPN
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENSE MOTIONS IN LIMINEBRAYTON®PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS ATLAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

PO BOX 6169

NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555

PROOF OF SERVICE BY LEXIS-NEXIS E-SERVICE

Tam employed in the County of Marin, State of California. I am over the age of 18
years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 222 Rush Landing Road,
P.O. Box 6169, Novato, California, 94948-6169.

On November { b , 2010, I electronically served (E-Service), pursuant to General
Order No. 158, the following documents:

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENSE MOTIONS IN LIMINE
on the interested parties in this action by causing Lexis-Nexis E-service program pursuant to
General Order No. 158, to transmit a true copy thereof to the following party(ies):

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

The above document was transmitted by Lexis-Nexis E-Service and the transmission
was reported as complete and > error.

Executed on November , 2010, at Novato, California.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.

‘Angela Pofterfield {>

In Re Brayton Group_ 536 [Lead Case: Louis Castagna] v. Ashestos Defendants (B¢P)
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-07-274230

PROOF OF SERVICE BY E-SERVICEDate Created:
A. {AAP}

411/5/2010-4:11:31 PM

Brayton-Purcell
Group Service List

Created by: LitSupport - GroupServiceList - Live

Group Service List: s£536

Adams Nye Trapani Becht LLP
222 Keamy Street, Seventh Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
415-982-8955 415-982-2042 (fax)
Defendants:

Amvcord, Inc. (AMCORD)

Becherer, Kannett & Schweitzer
Water Tower
1255 Powell Sueet
Emeryville, CA 94608-2604
$10-658-3600 310-658-1151 (fax)
Defendants:

American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
(AHMOCO

CSK Auto, Inc. (CSKAUT)

Dillingham Construction, N.A., Inc.
(DILGHM)

Johnson Controls, Inc. JOHCON)

Berry & Be

P.O. Box 1607

2930 Lakeshore Avenue

Oakland, CA 94610

P10 835-8520 510-835-5117 (fax)
Berry & Berry (B&B)

Burnham Brown
4901 Harrison Street
ii” Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
510-444-6800 510-835-6666 (fax)
Defendants:

Borg-Wamer Corporation by its Successor
in Interest, BorgWarner Morse TEC Inc.
(BWMORS)

Crosby & Rowell, LLP
299 Third Street 7 a Floor
Oakland, CA
8 10389 0800 “St 0839-66 10 (fax)
Defendants:
Goulds Pumps, Inc. (GOULDP)
Pete King Corporation (PKING)

Archer Norris
P.O. Box 8035
2033 N. Main Street, Suite 800
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925-930-6600 925-930-6620 (fax)
PGraybar Electric C
aybar Electric Company, Inc.

(GRAYBR)

Henand Stucco and Lime Products, Inc.
{HSTUC)

Marconi Plastering Company, Inc.
(MARCON)

Moore Bros. (MOWELD)

Bennett, Samuelsen, Reynolds & Allard
1301 Marina Village Parkway
Suite 300
Alameda, CA 94501-1084
510-444-7688 510-444-5849 (fax)
Defendants:

Gatke Corporation (GATKE)

Slakey Brothers, Inc. (SLAKEY)

Bishop, Barry, Drath
Watergate Tower I
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425
Emeryville, CA 94608
510-596-0888 510-596-0899 (fax)
Defendants:

Auto Parts Emporium (APEMPO)

Connor & Bisho

44 Montgomery Street

Suite 1750

San Francisco, CA 94104

415-434-3006 415-434-1445 (fax)

eens ly C I
familton Supply Company, Inc.

(HAMSUP) PP

DeHay & Elliston, LLP.
1300 Clay Street
Suite 840
Oakland, CA 94612
510-285-0750 510-285-0740 (fax)
Defendants:
Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (KAISGY)

Run By : Porterfield, Angela

Bassi, Edlin, Huie & Blum LLP
351 California Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94104
415-397-9006 415-397-1339 (fax)
Defendants:
1.7, Thorpe & Son, Inc. (THORPE)
Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PARKHF)

Berkes Crane Robinson & Seal, LLP
515 S. Figueroa S Suse * 1500
Los Angeles, CA
243-955-1150 TP 355- L155 (fax)
Defendants:

Calportiand Company { fka California
Portland Cement Company) (CALPOR}

Bryden Hugo & Parker
135 Main Street, 20" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-808-0300 415-808-0333 (fax)
Defendants:

Dana Companies, LLC (fka Dana
Corporation} (DANA)

Foster Wheeler LLC (PKA Poster Wheeler
Corporation) (FOSTER)

Nibco Inc. (NIBCO}

Pneumo Abex LLC (ABEX)

Sacramento Windustrial Co. (VNDSUP}

Swinerton Builders (SWINBU)

ota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.

oxors)

Union Carbide Corporation (UNIONC)

Cooley, Manion, Jones, Hake, & Kurowski
LLP

201 Spear Street
Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 941
415-512-4381 415. ria. e791 (fax)
Defendants:
A.W. Chesterton Company (CHESTR}
Collins Electrical Company, Inc.
(COLELC)
Temporary Plant Cleaners, Inc. (TEMPLA)

Filice, Brown, Eassa & McLeod LLP
1999 Harrison Street, 18" Floor
Oakland, CA 94612-0850
510-444-3131 510-839-7940 (fax)
Defendants:

cates Southwest Cement Company

OR co Dining Company, Inc. (TOSREF}Date Created: 211/5/2010-4:11: ‘32 BM

A. (AAP)

Brayton-Purcely
Group Service List

Created by: LitSupport - GroupServicelist - Live

Group Service List: s£536

Foley & Mansfield PLLP

300 Lakeside Drive

Suite 1900

Oakland, CA 94612

510-590-9500 510-590-9595 {fax}

PRcmehes ly C ny REPBLC)
Rey ic Supply Company
Zakn Industees, Lhe URN

Gordon & Rees LLP
Embarcadero Center West
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 9411!
415-986-5900 415-986-8054 (fax)
Defendants:
3M Company (3M)
A&G Auto Parts, Inc. (AGAUTO)
oben Tire & Rubber Company, The

In, ee iE Rand Company (INGRSL)
Trane ‘US, Inc. tha American Standard, Inc.
(AMSTAN)

(GO

Imai, Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery, LLP
100 Bush Street, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94104
415-675-7000 415-675-7008 (fax)
Defendants:
J.8. Guerin & Company, inc. (GUERIN)
Rich-Tex, Inc. (RICHTEX
San Francisco Gravel Company, Inc. (SFG)

Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard
400 Capitol Mall, ey oer
Sacramento, CA
916-321-4560 oe: 321. 4555 (fax)
Defendants:

Robert C, Powell Developments
(ROBPOW}

Law Offices of Lucinda L. Storm, Esq.

610A Third Street

San Francisco, CA $4107

bean ope 415-777-6992 (fax)
ena Gas & Electric Company (PG&E)

Low, Ball & Lynch
505 Montgomery Street, 7* Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-2584
415-981-6630 415-399-1506 (fax)
Defendants:

Pacific Mechanical Corporation
(PACMCR)

Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier
LLP

180 Sansome Street
17 Bloor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415-399-3840 415-399-3838 (fax)
Defendants:
Colonial Sugar Refining Company (CSR)

Hassard Bonnington LLP

Two Embarcadero Center

Suite 1800

San Francisco, CA 94111

415-288-9800 415-288-9802 (fax)

Defendants:
Honeywell International, Inc. (HONEY W)
Sequoia Ventures Inc. (SEQUOA)

Jackson & Wallace
35 Francisco Street
Sixth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94133
415-982-6300 415-982-6700 (fax)
Defendants:

Zurn Industries, LLC (ZURN)

Lankford Crawford Moreno LLP
1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd.
Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925-300-3520 925-300-3386 (fax)
Defendants:

Ford Motor Company (FORD)

Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins
565 Commercial, 4" Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111
415-979-0100 415-979-0747 (fax)
Defendants:

Uniroyal Holding, Inc. (UNIROY)

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
One Embarcadero
30" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-291-7400 415-291-7474 (fax)
Defendants:

Westbume Supply, Inc. (WESSUP)

Run By : Porterfield, Angela

Gordon & Rees LLP
101 West Broadway
Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101
619-696-6700 619-696-7124 (fax)
Defendants:
Great Wester Builders, Incorporated
(GWBLDI)

Helon & Manfredo LLP
735 W. Altuvial Avenue
Suite 102
Fresno, CA 93711
559-226-4420 559-226-1524 (fax)
Defendants:
Sebring West Automotive Center
(SEAWES)

K & L Gates LLP
Four Embarcadero Center
Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-882-8200 415-882-8220 (fax}
Defendants:
Crane Co. (CRANCO)
Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (fka Square
D Company) (SQUARE)

Law Office of Mario Tapanes
9550 Firestone Bivd. Suite 105
Downey, CA 90241
562- 745: 72355 362-745-2341 (fax)
Defendants:
Doty Bros. Equipment Co. (DOTBRO )

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP:
One Sansome Street
Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 941
415-362-2580 41. ote o8s2 (fax)
eet ong Hy Ce I

lamilton Supply Company, Inc.
(HAMSUP)

Kroeger Equipment & Supply Co. A
canons Cora (ROR
Trimon Inc.

McKenna Lon;
101 California
41° Floor
San Francisco, CA 9
415-267-: 4000 415. Gr 11198 {fax}
Defendants:

Metalciad ‘Insulation Corporation
(METALC)

ng & AldridgeDate Created: 11/5/2010-4:11:31 PM

A. (BAP)

Brayton-Purcell ~~
Group Service List

Created by: LitSupport ~ GroupServicelist - Live

Group Service List: s£536

Morgan, Lewis & Bockins LLP
One ake. Spear Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-442-1000 415-442-1001 (fax)
Defendants:
Grinnell Corporation (GRINN)
Santa Fe Braun, Inc. as Successor-in-
Interest to C.F. Braun, Inc. (CFBRAN)
Yarway Corporation (YARWAY)

Pond North, LLP
350 South Grand Avenue
Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213-617-6170 213-623-3594 (fax)
Defendants:
CBS Corporation (fka_Viacom Inc., fka
wae Hlectric Corporation)

Ee ‘Corporation (FAMILD
Genuine Parts Company (GPC)

Schiff Hardin LLP
One Market Plaza
Spear Street Tower, 32 Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-901-8700 415-901-8701 (fax)
Defendants:

Owens-Illinois, inc. (OD)

Sinunu Bruni LLP
333 Pine Suoet, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94104
415-362-9700" 41s: 362-9707 (fax)
Defendants:
Cal-Steam Supply Company (CALSTM)
Timec Company, Inc. (TIMECO)

Stevens, Drummond & Gifford
1910 Qiympre Boulevard
Suite 25)
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925-944-5550 925-256-9669 (fax)
Defendants:

wey) -Moore Paint Company, Inc.

Nixon Peabody LLP
One Embarcadero
18" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-984-8200 866-542-6538 (fax)
Defendants:

Shell Oil Company (SHLOIL)

Prindle, Amare, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes
& Reinholtz LLP.
310 Golden Shore, Fourth Floor
Long Beach, CA_ 90802
562-836-3946 562-495-0564 {fax}
Defendants:

Parex USA, Inc. ( fka Parexlahabra, Inc.,
fka La Habra Products, Inc.) (LAHAB)

Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold
One Market Plaza
Steuart Tower, Reet ys
San Francisco, C.
415-781-7900" tis. aL 5635 (fax)
Defendants:
Gatke Corporation {GATKE)
General Electric Company (GE)
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E)

SNR Denton US, LLP
525 Market Street, 26° Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2708
415-882-5000 415-882-0300 (fax)
Defendants:

Rapid-American Corporation (RAPID)

Ba & Meredith
45 Montgomery Street

Sen Erancisco, CA 941
415-398-0200 disi398-2820 (fax)
Defendants:

Pacific Coast Building Products, Inc.
(PCBLDG)

Run By : Porterfield, Angela

Perkins Coie LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-344-7000 415-344-7288 (fax)
Defendants:
Georgia-Pacific Corporation (GP)
Honeywell International, Inc. (HONEY W)

Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes
& Reinholtz LLP.
One California Street, Suite 1910
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-788-8354 415-788-3625 (fax)
Defendants:

Consolidated Insulation, Ine. (CONSOL)

Selman Breitrman LLP
33 New Montgomery
6” floor
San Francisco, CA 9:
415-979-0400 415- 319. 099 (fax)
Defendants:
Douglass Insulation Company, Inc.
(@OUGLS'
Kern Building Materials, Inc. KERBUI)
Lamons Gasket Company (LAMONS)
Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of
California, The (PEPBOY)
Scatt Co. of California (SCOTT)

Steptoe & Johnson LLP
633 West Fifth St., 7° Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213-439-9400 213-439-9599 (fax)
Defendants: Life h
etropolitan Life Insurance Company
(MET)

Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall
601 Montgome: oleh o Floor
San Francisco,
415-781-7072 as: so 15258 (fax)
Defendants:
Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. (CLEAVR)
Duro Dyne Corporation (DURODN)
Hamilton Materials, Inc. (HAM-M)
J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. (J-
MMAN)
Oscar E. Erickson, Inc. (OSCAR)
Quintec Industries, Inc. (QUINTC)
SVI Corporation (SVICOR)
Thomas Dee Engineering Company (DEE)Brayton-Purcell
Group Service List

Date Created: 11/$/2010-4:11:31 PM
A. (AAP)

Created by: LitSupport - GroupServiceList - Live
Group Service List: si336

Wilson, Etser, Moskowitz, Edelman &
Dieker LLP
525 Market Street, 17* Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2725
415-433-0990 415-434-1370 (fax)
Defendants:

American Honda Motor Co., Inc,
(AHMOCO)

Run By :

Porterfield,

Angela