Judge Laura A. Seigle, Case 22STCV18569 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV18569, Date: 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18569 Hearing Date: February 6, 2023 Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant Metalclad Insulation LLC filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiffs Anthony Adams and Janice Adams have no evidence of exposure to asbestos from a product from Defendant.

A defendant seeking summary judgment must “conclusively negate[] a necessary element of the plaintiff’s case, or . . . demonstrate[] that under no hypothesis is there a material issue of fact that requires the process of trial.” (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.) To show that a plaintiff cannot establish an element of a cause of action, a defendant must make the initial showing “that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.) “The defendant may, but need not, present evidence that conclusively negates an element of the plaintiff’s cause of action. The defendant may also present evidence that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence – as through admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he has discovered nothing.” (Id. at p. 855.) A plaintiff’s deposition testimony that the plaintiff has no knowledge of any exposure to the defendant’s products may be sufficient to shift the burden to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact. (McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1103-1104.) The plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he did not recall ever working with a product manufactured by the defendant may not be sufficient to shift the burden if the plaintiff is able to prove his case by another means. (Weber v. John Crane, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1439.) “ ‘If plaintiffs respond to comprehensive interrogatories seeking all known facts with boilerplate answers that restate their allegations, or simply provide laundry lists of people and/or documents, the burden of production will almost certainly be shifted to them once defendants move for summary judgment and properly present plaintiff’s factually devoid discovery responses.’” (Id. at p. 1440.)

Defendant states Plaintiffs’ discovery responses are factually devoid. (Motion at p. 7; Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) 2, 5.) Defendant served an interrogatory asking Plaintiffs for all facts supporting the contention that Anthony Adams was exposed to asbestos from a product from Defendant. (Ex. C at p. 2.) Plaintiffs responded that he was exposed to asbestos through working in close proximity to Defendant’s workers who were handling asbestos-containing insulation. (Ex. I at p. 2.) The response does not identify evidence supporting this contention that Anthony Adams worked near Defendant’s workers. The interrogatory response also identifies Plaintiffs, certain family members, certain co-workers including Richard W. Johnson, Henry Mandel, Mike Barnes, Gail Mandel, Joyce Barnes, Doug Nelms, Burl Holley, Wayne Slaughter, Gary Bach, and Chuck Arntz as having knowledge. (Ex. I at p. 4.) Nelms has no knowledge of exposure to Defendant’s product. (Motion at p. 12.) In response to a supplemental interrogatory, Plaintiffs stated they have no further information. (UMF 22.) The interrogatory response does not specify the information these people have and does not state they have knowledge that Anthony Adams was exposed to Defendant’s asbestos-containing products.

Defendant also points to Anthony Adams’ testimony that he never heard of Metalclad and has no information he ever worked with or around any Metalclad products. (Ex. N at p. 525-526.)

Plaintiffs argue that the interrogatory response identifies 13 coworkers who worked with him and six employees of Defendant who worked at the locations where Anthony Adams worked. (Opposition at pp. 1-2.) However, Plaintiffs cannot merely provide a laundry list of people to avoid burden shifting. (Weber, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1440.) Also, Plaintiffs’ discovery responses do not contain evidence that Defendant’s employees worked at those locations at the same time Anthony Adams was working at the locations.

Because the discovery responses and deposition testimony do not contain evidence supporting the conclusion that Anthony Adams worked nearby Defendant’s employees who were handling asbestos-containing insulation, the burden shifts to Plaintiffs. In their opposition, Plaintiffs do not present any evidence showing the existence of a disputed issue of material fact.

The motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

The moving party is to give notice.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant Regal Beloit America, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiffs Anthony Adams and Janice Adams have no evidence of exposure to asbestos from a product from Defendant.

A. Objections

Plaintiffs’ Objections

No. 1: Sustained. See below.

No. 2: Sustained. The witness did not establish that his knowledge of Marathon motors was obtained from his experience working with the motors. The witness did not establish that the documents he reviewed were not hearsay or were business records or were otherwise admissible.

No. 3: Overruled.

Defendant’s Objections

Nos. 1-22: Many of these are not objections or the court did not rely on the evidence.

Nos. 23-35: Overruled.

Nos. 36-58: The court did not rely on this evidence.

B. Summary Judgment

Defendant states Plaintiffs discovery responses are factually devoid. (Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) 9, 10.) Defendant served an interrogatory asking Plaintiffs for all facts supporting the contention that Anthony Adams was exposed to asbestos from a product from Defendant. (Index, Ex. B at p. 2.) Plaintiffs responded that he was exposed to asbestos from Defendant’s motors when he worked at Allied Electric Motor Service between 1980 and 1987. (Index, Ex. C at p. 2.) The response does not identify evidence supporting the contention that the motors were from Defendant.

The interrogatory response identifies Plaintiffs, certain family members, certain co-workers including Richard W. Johnson, Henry Mandel, Mike Barnes, Gail Mandel, Joyce Barnes, Doug Nelms, Burl Holley, Wayne Slaughter, Gary Bach, and Chuck Arntz as having knowledge. (Index, Ex. C at pp. 5-6.) However, Plaintiffs cannot merely provide a laundry list of people to avoid burden shifting. (Weber, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1440.) Also, Plaintiffs’ discovery responses do not specify what knowledge these witnesses have about Anthony Adams’ work on Defendant’s motors. The discovery responses are factually-devoid and the burden shifted.

Defendant argues the Leeson motors Anthony Adams encountered did not contain asbestos based on the declaration of Neil Roberts. (Motion at p. 8.) Roberts states he “examined records and documentation concerning Leeson motors and determined that Leeson never used any asbestos-containing parts in Leeson motors.” (Roberts Decl., ¶ 6.) That statement lacks personal knowledge and is based on hearsay. Roberts did not establish that the unidentified documents he reviewed were business records or not hearsay or are otherwise admissible.

In opposition, Plaintiffs presented evidence that Anthony Adams worked on Marathon motors that contained asbestos. (See, e.g., Plaintiffs Undisputed Material Facts (“PUMF”) 8-10.) Defendants argue that Anthony Adams’ declaration is not admissible because he failed to identify motor models at his deposition. (Reply at p. 6.) However, Defendants did not show that the statements in his declaration contradict his deposition testimony. Also, a jury could reasonably infer that motors brought in for maintenance in the 1980s were made before 1979. Because Plaintiffs showed a disputed issue of material fact, the motion is denied.

The motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

The moving party is to give notice.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant Emerson Electric Co. filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiffs Anthony Adams and Janice Adams have no evidence of exposure to asbestos from a product from Defendant.

Defendant states Anthony Adams has no memory of working on an asbestos-containing motor from Defendant. (Motion at p. 6.) He testified he worked on Emerson Electric brand motors between 1983 and 1997, does not know the horsepower or model of those motors, worked on motors from U.S. Motors, does not know the horsepower of those motors, does not know the number of U frame or T frame U.S. Motors motors he worked on, does not remember working on Alco motors, worked on small Doerr motors, does not remember White-Rodgers motors, worked on Leroy Somers motors, does not remember working on particular motors with brakes, and has no documents about these motors. (Carpenter Decl., Ex. D at pp. 181-188, 556, 559, 561, 562.) Plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses are similarly lacking in specific evidence that Anthony Adams worked on Defendant’s asbestos-containing motors. (Carpenter Decl., Ex. F.) Defendant argues that because Anthony Adams does not remember particular motors, he cannot prove any of them contained asbestos. (Motion at p. 6.)

Defendant has shown that Plaintiffs’ discovery responses do not contain evidence that Anthony Adams worked on motors from Defendant that contained asbestos. Therefore, the burden shifts to Plaintiffs.

Plaintiff submits evidence that all motors from U.S. Motors contained asbestos before 1964. (Morse Decl., Ex. 2 at pp. 82-83, 86-87.) Anthony Adams’ co-worker worked with him on motors from U.S. Motors that were between ten and thirty, forty or fifty years old. (Morse Decl., Ex. 5 at pp. 37-38, Ex. 6 at p. 72.) This is sufficient to show the existence of a disputed issue precluding summary judgment.

The motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

The moving party is to give notice.