MELVIN RODRICK ET AL VS. SOCO WEST, INC. ET AL
Application of Plaintiff Melvin Rodrick for Entry of Default Against Defendants
Motion type
Monetary amounts referenced
Parties
Attorneys
Ruling
SF Superior Court - Asbestos Law & Motion - CGC22277017 - February 17, 2026 Hearing date: February 17, 2026 Case number: CGC22277017 Case title: MELVIN RODRICK ET AL VS. SOCO WEST, INC. ET AL Case Number: | | CGC22277017 | Case Title: | | MELVIN RODRICK ET AL VS. SOCO WEST, INC. ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-02-17 15:30 PM | Calendar Matter: | | DEFAULT HEARING (PROVE UP) | Rulings: | | On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, February 17, 2026, for 3:30 PM Department 304, Line 1.
The Application of Plaintiff Melvin Rodrick for Entry of Default Against Defendants: (1) Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., in the amount of $2,313,442.76; (2) K-M Industries Holding Co., Inc., in the amount of $2,313,442.76; (3) Draper & Richardson in the amount of $2,313,442.76; (4) Weatherford & Conner in the amount of $2,313,442.76; and (5) Archie Q. Smith Company, Inc., in the amount of $2,313,442.76 is GRANTED.
The Court has reviewed the prove-up packet including the Judicial Council Form CIV-100, the memorandum, Mr. Nevin's declaration and the attached exhibits, which are admitted. The Court finds Defendants have been served with process, failed to answer or appear and defend the action within the time allowed by law, and defaults have been duly entered. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in the Application. The Court intends to execute the proposed judgment accompanying the application.
Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling must email contestasbestostr@sftc.org by 4:00 p.m. on Friday, February 13, 2026, and state their intention to contest. If a hearing is requested, it will be on February 17, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. Attorneys may appear in person or remotely via zoom: Meeting ID 160 757 8308; Passcode: 485029. Face coverings are optional.
The Court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law and Motion department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: Their name, CSR and telephone number, and their individual work email address. There will be only one official record. If the parties cannot agree, the Court will designate a qualified court reporter to provide the official transcript for the matter, and the party or parties will bear the cost. =(304/EPS) | |
Cited authorities
Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.