On December 06, 2001 a Answer was filed involving a dispute between Jordan, Cheryl Lynn, Jordan, James, Thomas Dee Engineering Company, and 4520 Corp., Abblummus Global, Inc., A C And S,Inc., A.H. Voss Company, Albay Construction, Allis-Chalmers Corp. Product Liability Trust, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., American Standard, Inc., Asbestos Corp. Limited, Asbestos Corporation Ltd., Asbestos Defendants, Babcock Borsig Power Inc Ref To Db Riley Inc, Blue Diamond Corp., Borg Warner Inc., Borgwarner Inc. Fka Borg-Warner Automotive, Inc., Bragg Investment Company, Inc., Bridgestone Firestone Americas Holdings, Inc., Bridgestone Firestone,Inc., Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, Llc,, Bwd Automotive, Calaveras Cement Co., Certainteed Corporation, Chevron Products Company, Colonial Sugar Refining Company, Conocophillips Company, Consolidated Insulation, Inc., Crane Co., Crown Cork & Seal Company,Inc., Daimlerchrysler Corporation, Dana Corporation, D. Cummins Corporation, Diamond International Corp., Dillingham Construction N.A.,Inc., Dixon Boiler Works Inc, Dixon Boiler Works, Inc., Does 1-800, Dow Chemical Company, Dresser Industries Inc., D.W. Nicholson Corporation, Eaton Corporation, Elliott Company, Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc., Fisher Controls International, Llc, Flintkote Co., Flintkote Mines Ltd., Flowserve Us Inc, Flowserve Us Inc., Fluor Corporation, Fmc Corporation -Turbo Pump Operation, Ford Motor Company, Foster Wheeler Llc, Garlock Sealing Technologies, Ll, Gatke Corporation, General Electric Company, General Motors Corporation, General Refractories Company, Genstar Co., Genuine Parts Company, Goodrich Corporation, Grinnell Corporation, Halliburton Company, Hanson Cement, Inc., Henry Vogt Machine Co., Hercules Powder Company, Honeywell International, Inc. Fka Alliedsignal, Imo Industries Inc.,, Imo Industries, Inc., J.R.Simplot Company, J.R. Simplot Company, A Nevada Corporation,, J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Keenan Properties, Inc, Kubota Corporation, Lamons Gasket Company Dba Power Engineering &, Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp., Maremont Corporation, Metalclad Insulation Corporation, Monsanto Company, Morton International, Inc. A Rohm And Haas Company, Oakfabco, Inc., Oscar E. Erickson, Inc., Owens-Illinois, Inc., Pacific Coast Building Products, Inc Dba Pacific, Parker Hannifin Corporation, Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Parsons Energy & Chemical Group, Inc., Parsons Energy & Chemicals Group Inc, Plant Insulation Company, Pnuemo Abex Corporation, As Successor, Power Engineering & Equipment Co. Inc., Quigley Company, Inc., Rapid-American Corporation, Republic Supply Company, Rheem Manufacturing Co, Rheem Manufacturing Company, Robertson-Ceco Corporation, Rosendahl Corporation, Santa Fe Braun, Inc. As Successor-In-Interest To, Sequoia Ventures, Inc., Shell Oil Company, Soo Line Railroad Company, Standard Motor Products, Stuart Radiator Core Manufacturing Co Inc, Stuart Radiator Core Manufacturing Co. Inc., Stuart-Western, Inc., Sugar City Building Materials Inc., Taylor Plumbing Supply Company, Dba Globe Plumbing, Taylor Plumbing Supply Inc., Temporary Plant Cleaners, Inc., The Budd Company, Thomas Dee Engineering Company, Thorpe Insulation Company, Tosco Corporation, Tosco Refining Company, Trimon, Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, Unocal Corporation, Viacom Inc., Successor By Merger To Cbs Corporatio, Vogt Valve Company, Waldron, Duffy, Inc., Westburne Supply, Inc., Yale Industrial Products, Inc., Zurn Industries, Inc., 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
IEAM San Francisco Superior Courts Information Technology Group Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jul-09-2004 3:51 pm Case Number: CGC-01-402113 Filing Date: Jul-09-2004 3:49 Juke Box: 001 Image: 00993737 ANSWER JAMES JORDAN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC) 001000993737 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.oo ND HW FF WN mw NyY YN NNN DSF EK Se Se Sept Ss BeRRRE OHS Fs FSO wWMN AH FH NF SO eo gp ge ges JAMES N. SINUNU, SBN 62802 . MARIA R.L. LABOS, SBN 230326 San Francisca County Superior Court ADAMS | NYE | SINUNU | BRUNI | BECHT LLP 222 Kearny Street, Seventh Floor JUL 0.9 2004 San Francisco, California 94108-4521 Telephone: (415) 982-8955 Facsimile: (415) 982-2042 Attorneys for Defendant ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JAMES JORDAN, No. 402113 Plaintiff DEFENDANT ASBESTOS vs. CORPORATION LIMITED’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, et al. INJURY Defendants. J. INTRODUCTION Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. hereby provides this summary pleading, adopting designated portions of that Master Pleading known as the "Adams « Nye + Sinunu * Walker LLP Master Answer,” which document was served on all parties previously. The authority for incorporation of portions of that Master Pleading was conferred by San Francisco Superior Court General Order Number 55, dated January 17, 1996. NOTICE: The Master Pleading incorporated into this Summary Pleading is on file with the Clerk of the Superior Court, and was filed with the Clerk on October 21, 1997. A copy of the Master Pleading and of General Order 55 may be obtained upon written request to Adams | Nye | Sinunu | Bruni | Becht, LLP, at the address above. 1 DEFENDANT ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINToO mI DH BW NY Defendant, Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., hereby incorporates into this Summary Pleading the following portions of the above-referenced Master Pleading, and responds to the Complaint on file in this matter as follows: X IL. DEFINITIONS x III. GENERAL DENIAL XIV. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES : X_- FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Failure To State Cause of Action : Alleged Against Plaintiff x SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Violation of Statute of Limitations : Alleged Against Plaintiff XX —_ THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Laches: Alleged Against Plaintiff XX FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Denial of Successor/Predecessor Liability : Alleged Against Plaintiff XX. -FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Lack of Legal Capacity : Alleged Against Plaintiff XX. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Failure to Join Adequate Defendants: Alleged Against Plaintiff X SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Lack of Privity: Alleged Against Plaintiff _X.—_- EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Contribution of Plaintiff's Negligence: Alleged Against Plaintiff XX _NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Consent of Plaintiff: Alleged Against Plaintiff XX TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Failure to Mitigate: Alleged Against Plaintiff XX. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Plaintiff's Knowledge of Hazard: Alleged Against Plaintiff XX TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Injury Caused by Actions of Others Outside Control of Defendant: Alleged Against Plaintiff XX THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Negligence of Other Entities Caused Injury: Alleged Against Plaintiff xX FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Entities Not Named Caused the Alleged Injuries: Alleged Against Plaintiff 2 DEFENDANT ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTow ND HN FF WN bp NNN NKYNH NRNN FE EF SF Se SSP =z s RBPrNRRRBKHFS OMAR AH FY N = SC Hl Mf FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Action is in Violation of Labor Code: Alleged Against Plaintiff SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Employer Negligence Caused the Alleged Injuries: Alleged Against Plaintiff SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Knowing Acts of Plaintiff's Employer Caused the Alleged Injuries: Alleged Against Plaintiff EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Judgment to be Reduced by Workers' Compensation Benefits: Alleged Against Plaintiff NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Products Conformed With Existing Safety Knowledge: Alleged Against Plaintiff TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Products Were Unforeseeable Misused: Alleged Against Plaintiff TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Negligent Product Use by Sophisticated Employers Was Proximate, Superseding Cause of Alleged Injuries: Alleged Against Plaintiff TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Failure to warn Plaintiff by Plaintifts Sophisticated Employers Caused the Alleged Injuries: Alleged Against Plainti: TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Failure to State Market Share Cause of Action: Alleged Against Plaintiff TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Failure to Join a Substantial Share of the Market Defeating Market Share Theory: Alleged Against Plaintiff TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Liability Absent Identification Violates Constitutional Rights: Alleged Against Plaintiff TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Actions of Defendant Conformed to Existing Knowledge and so Were Not Negligent: Alleged Against Plaintiff TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Plaintiff Was Directed by Contractor That Was Not Controlled by Defendant: Alleged Against Plaintiff TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant is not Liable Because of Lack of Control of Work Site: Alleged Against Plaintiff TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant Has No Liability Because Defendant Retained Independent Contractor Employer of Plaintiff: Alleged Against Plaintiff THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant is Not Liable Because of Knowledge of Hazard by Controlling Entity : Alleged Against Plaintiff 3 DEFENDANT ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINToem ND nH FF YW NY NN YN poy vn Yee eK SF SFP Se Ts ss pPeRePRRPBS FS Be ADM FY NTS p< x x THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Plaintiff's Status as "Borrowed Employee" Limits Remedies to Workers’ Compensation: Alleged Against Plainti THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Complaint Fails to State Cause of Action For Punitive Damages: Alleged Against Plaintiff HIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Imposition of Punitive Damages Would Constitute Criminal Fine or Penalty: Alleged Against Plaintiff ‘THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: An Award of Punitive Damages Would Be In Violation of California Law: Alleged Against Plaintiff THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: The Shipyard Was Controlled By The Navy: Alleged Against Plaintiff THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: This Defendant Is Not Liable Under qne Government Contractor Doctrine and The LHWCA: Alleged Against ainti THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Ships Were Made Under The Direction and Specification Of Entities With Superior Knowledge: Alleged Against Plaintiff THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Ships Were Repaired Under The Direction and Specification Of Entities With Superior Knowledge: Alleged Against Plaintiff THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Lack of Personal Jurisdiction: Alleged against Plaintiff- This answering defendant alleges that under Quebec law, Articles 3126 through 3129, 3151, 3164, and 3165, because all sales by this answering defendant were F.O.B. Quebec, Canada, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over this defendant. FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Alleged Against Plaintiff - This court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of all dispute between plaintiff and this answering defendant under Quebec law, Articles 3126 through 3129, 3151, 3164, and 3165. V. PRAYER: VI. NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL DATED: July 8 , 2004 ADAMS | NYE | SINUNU | BRUNI | BECHT LLP » Mugylee MARIA RL. LABOS Attorneys for Defendant ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED 4 00087304. WPD DEFENDANT ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINToO mY DH BP WN PROOF OF SERVICE I am over the age of eighteen years, not a party to the above-captioned matter, and employed by Adams | Nye | Sinunu | Bruni | Becht LLP at 222 Kearny Street, Seventh Floor, San Francisco, California, where the service described below took place on the date set forth below. Person(s) Served: David R. Donadio, Esq. Brayton%Purcell 222 Rush Landing Road P.O. Box 2109 Novato, CA 94948 Telephone: (415) 898-1555 Facsimile: 415-898-1247 Document(s) Served: DEFENDANT ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY Manner of Service: Mail: I am readily familiar with my employer's practice for the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service: such correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business in the county where I work. On the date set forth below, at my place of business, following ordinary business practices, | placed for collection and mailing by deposit in the United States Postal Service a copy of each Document Served, enclosed in a sealed envelope, with the postage thereon fully prepaid, each envelope being addressed to one of the Person(s) Served, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 1013(a). Facsimile: I transmitted by facsimile a copy of each Document Served mentioned above to each Person Served mentioned above pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1013(e). Personal service: I caused a copy of each Document Served to be hand delivered to each Person Served pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1011. If required, the actual server’s original proof of personal service will be filed with the court. Express Mail (U.S. Post Office): I deposited in a post office, mailbox, or other like facility regularly maintained by the United States Postal Service for receipt of Express Mail a copy of each Document Served in a sealed envelope with Express Mail postage paid, each envelope being addressed to each Person Served as mentioned above in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 1013(c). Express Mail (other express service carrier): | deposited in a box or other like facility regularly maintained by an express service carrier, or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, a copy of each Document Served in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier with delivery fees paid or provided for, each envelope being addressed to each Person Served in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 1013(c). . I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of Ue of California that t Tepoing is true and correct. Dated: ? | 4| O 4g Signature 7