DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25277305·sf·Civil·Asbestos Litigation
Hearing about 1 month agoGRANTED

IAN OWENS VS. KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC. ET AL

Application for Entry of Default Against Defendants (Prove Up)

Hearing date
Jul 28, 2026
Department
502
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$2,071,971.84$2,071,971.84

Parties

PlaintiffIan Owens
DefendantKelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.
DefendantK-M Industries Holding Co., Inc.
DefendantKaiser Gypsum Company, Inc.

Attorneys

Mr. Nevinfor Plaintiff

Ruling

On Asbestos Law and Motion / Discovery Calendar for Tuesday, July 28, 2026, Department 502, Line 1. The Application of Plaintiff Ian Owens for Entry of Default Against Defendants: (1) Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., in the amount of $2,071,971.84; and (2) K-M Industries Holding Co., Inc., in the amount of $2,071,971.84 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 default has 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. the day before the hearing and state their intention to contest. If a hearing is requested, it will be on July 28, 2026, at 4:00 p.m in Department 502.

Attorneys may appear in person or remotely via zoom: Meeting ID 161 9575 2444; Passcode: 145616. =(304/SKF) | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations 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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share