arrow left
arrow right
  • JACK ERVIN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • JACK ERVIN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • JACK ERVIN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • JACK ERVIN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • JACK ERVIN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • JACK ERVIN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • JACK ERVIN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • JACK ERVIN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                Co me WI DAH HW ke BR NM

ry oN RP RP oY NN NR N YN EF Be Be ee ee ee
oa aaa & 2 NM = SF 6S we NA KH SF WN KF S

Dougias G. Wah, Esq. SBN 64692

Megan W. Wendell, Esq. SBN 238423
Foley & Mansfield. PLL?. ELECTRONICALLY
1111 Broadway, 10" Floor FILED
Oakland, CA 94607 Superior Court of California,
Telephone: (510) 590-9500 County of San Francisco
Facsimile: (510) 590-9595 MAY 08 2009
GORI |
Attorneys for Defendant UAE LAS OK Clerk
DICKMAN CONSTRUCTION, INC., SUED HEREIN Deputy Clerk

AS DOES #2 AND 1001

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

JACK ERVIN, Case No. CGC-06-451663

Plaintiff, “Asbestos-Related Case”

DEFENDANT DICKMAN CONSTRUCTION,
INC.’S NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
GRANTING DICKMAN CONSTRUCTION,
INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

vs.

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B¢P),

Defendants. JUDGMENT
Date: May 5, 2009
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: 301
Judge: Hon. Peter J. Busch

Case Filed: April 4, 2007
Trial Date: § May 11, 2009

Nae See! at See et ae! tt ee Se et at Nt

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
Hl
Mt
Ml
Mt
Mt
Mf
Mf
dit
Mt

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING DICKMAN CONSTRUCTION, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ICe 2. AI DH & BH YP =

mow YN BP NN NN SF Se Be Fe Be Se OS Oe Se
oe a AA 8k wD RP Se Ss ee DDH RF YW NY KF SS

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 5, 2009, the Honorable Peter J. Busch of Department 301
of the above-entitled Court signed and entered the Order Granting Defendant Dickman Construction,
Inc’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and copy of said executed

Order.

Dated: May 7, 2009 FOLEY & MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P.

BY: Prges nse chg)

Douglas G. Wah, Esq.

Megan W. Wendell, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant

DICKMAN CONSTRUCTION INC.

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING DICKMAN CONSTRUCTION, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
2EXHIBIT Aoe Ft KD Ne ke BY Ne

yo oN YY YW Ww NN Nee em me
2URHRERSBE BSE REAR RERBE OE

Douglas G. Wah, Esq. SBN 64692 ENDORSED

Megan W. Wendell, Esq. SBN 238423 F tL Quer court

Foley & Mansfield, PLLP San Francisen ©

1111 Broadway, 10" Floor

Oakland, CA 94607 MAY 0.5 2009

Telephone: (510) 590-9500

Facsimile: (510) 390-9595 GORDON PA oa
i Haputy Cio

Attomeys for Defendant Be

DICKMAN CONSTRUCTION, INC. SUED HEREIN

AS DOES #2 and 1001

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

JACK ERVIN, Case No. CGC-06-451663

ak
RDER GRANTING

)
Plaintiff,
| DEFENDANT DICKMAN

v. “
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP),

Defendants.

CONSTRUCTION, INC.’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Date: May 5, 2009

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Dept.: 301

Judge: Hon. Peter J. Busch
Case Filed: April 4, 2007

Trial Date: May 11, 2009

The motion for summary judgment by defendant Dickman Construction, Inc. came on regularly
for hearing at 9:30 am. on May 5, 2009 in Department 301 of the above-entitled court, the Honorable

Peter J. Busch presiding.

The Court, having considered all of the evidence submitted and oral argument of counsel, finds
that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party, Dickman Construction,
Inc., is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

The Court has considered all of the admissible evidence set forth in the papers and all inferences
reasonably deducible from the evidence, except such inferences which may have been contradicted by

other inferences or evidence.

I
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DICKMAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTCS ot DH ee WY YD

NY N RP NY NR NN NR RO ees
So aD A BF YW Ne BF SBS me IW KR hh WN BF

The Court finds that Dickman Construction satisfied its initial burden of production by
demonstrating that Plaintiff neither has nor reasonably can obtain the necessary evidence to prove that
the sheetrock dust swept by Dickman laborers at the worksite in question contained asbestos fibers.
This was accomplished through deposition testimony, interrogatory responses, and the declaration of
Gary Paoli, attached to the moving papers.

The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to produce evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.

Therefore, the motion for summary judgment by defendant Dickman Construction, Inc. is hereby
GRANTED.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that judgment shall be entered in favor of defendant Dickman
Construction, Inc. and against plaintiff JACK ERVIN and that defendant DICKMAN
CONSTRUCTION, INC. shall be entitled to receive its costs of suit herein.

MAY 0.5 2009 PETER J BUSCH

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Dated:

2
{PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DICKMAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT