WAYNE FOSTER JR. ET AL VS. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ET AL

SF Superior Court - Asbestos Law & Motion - CGC23277183 - November 13, 2025 Hearing date: November 13, 2025 Case number: CGC23277183 Case title: WAYNE FOSTER JR. ET AL VS. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ET AL Case Number: | | CGC23277183 | Case Title: | | WAYNE FOSTER JR. ET AL VS. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-11-13 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Amended MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT And Notice Of Motion For Summary Judgment Filed By San Francisco Gravel Co | Rulings: | | On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Thursday November 13, 2025, in Department 304, Line 1 DEFENDANT SAN FRANCISCO GRAVEL CO., INC.'s Amended MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT is DENIED.

The Court finds that Defendants have failed to shift the initial burden, and in the alternative that Plaintiffs' discovery responses are not factually devoid as to specific facts supporting Decedent's exposure to asbestos-containing material for which Defendants are responsible. Accordingly, Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment are denied. Oppositions filed. Replies filed.

Defendant SF Gravel's objection to Plaintiffs' Exhibit A [Face Page, Signature Page, and Verifications of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Responses to SF Gravel] is OVERRULED.

Defendant's objection to Plaintiffs' Exhibit B [Face Page and Attendance Record of the Deposition of William Lobato, dated March 12, 2014, in the matter of William Lobato v. Amcord, Inc, et al] is OVERRULED. Exhibit B is admissible on this motion. While Plaintiffs should have properly included Mr. Lobato's deposition in its moving papers, Defendant was aware of Mr. Lobato's prior testimony as Plaintiffs identified it in their discovery responses and Defendant was present at the deposition. Defendant had sufficient opportunity to present countervailing evidence to Mr. Lobato's testimony. Thus, Exhibit B is not irrelevant.

Defendant's objection to Plaintiffs' Exhibit C [Face Pages and Attendance Records from the Depositions of Robert Cantley taken on April 12, 2012, in Gloria McClain v. Asbestos Corporation Limited, et al., San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-10-275596, and on November 7, 2012, in Steven Steele v. Asbestos Defendants, et al., San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. 275431] is OVERRULED for the same reasons above.

*Complete tentative ruling has been electronically served to Counsel Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling must email contestasbestostr@sftc.org by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing and state their intention to contest. If a hearing is requested, it will be on November 13, 2025, at 9:00 a.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. = (EPS/304). | |