Lawsuit Filed After Roseville Couple Exposed To Asbestos, Part 3 of 14

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)

Plaintiffs’ enterprise/market-share liability causes of action allege that the nature of the asbestos-products industry and market were such that decedent Tina Gomez likely used or was exposed to each defendant’s fungible products; defendants, including Universal, cooperated in the manufacture, design and labeling of a uniformly defective product and knowingly adhered to an industry-wide safety standard that failed to warn plaintiffs and others of the disease hazard posed by ordinary uses of their products; defendants delegated research, investigative and other safety functions to various trade associations and industry leaders who failed to adequately investigate the risks caused by the use of asbestos, and actively minimized and suppressed the publication of information showing that asbestos is hazardous; and defendants jointly created and controlled the risk that was the proximate cause of the mesothelioma that killed Ms. Gomez. Nowhere in Universal’s separate statement does it negate, let alone address, that its asbestos-containing products were fungible ; that plaintiffs joined in this lawsuit the makers of a substantial percentage of those products; or that plaintiffs lack evidence in support of any essential element of the complaint’s enterprise/market-share liability causes of action.

Nowhere in its separate statement does Universal reference any purported facts contained in the Declaration of Betty McElroy. Ms. McElroy searched Universal’s employment records for information regarding David Plaza, but she did not search for Mr. Plaza’s true first name, Lawrence. Although she had access to and can search for Mr. Plaza’s employment records using his Social Security Number, she did not do so.

Nowhere in Universal’s separate statement does it assert, let alone show any lack of proof, that Universal: (1) required the use of any asbestos-containing products at the West Facility; (2) managed the operative details of David Plaza’s work such that the asbestos-containing dust on his person and clothes exposed Tina Gomez to asbestos; (3) negligently failed to warn or abate concealed hazards; or (4) negligently hired or managed other workers that negligently handled asbestos-containing materials.

Nowhere in Universal’s Notice of Motion and Separate Statement does it specify the cause(s) of action, affirmative defense(s), claim(s) for damages, or issue(s) of duty for which summary adjudication is sought. Nor does Universal tie each purported fact in its separate statement to a particular claim, defense or issue sought to be adjudicated. [Id.] (See Part 4 of 14.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information