DANIEL LEE ET AL VS. AMCORD, INC. ET AL

SF Superior Court - Asbestos Law & Motion - CGC23277133 - August 5, 2025 Hearing date: August 5, 2025 Case number: CGC23277133 Case title: DANIEL LEE ET AL VS. AMCORD, INC. ET AL Case Number: | | CGC23277133 | Case Title: | | DANIEL LEE ET AL VS. AMCORD, INC. ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-08-05 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT | Rulings: | | On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, August 5, 2025, in Department 304, Line 1. DEFENDANT MISSION STUCCO COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT is DENIED. Opposition filed. Reply filed.

Plaintiffs' Objections Plaintiffs' objection to the Declaration of Gilbert Hernandez is SUSTAINED on the grounds of lack of personal knowledge. (Code Civ. Proc. 437c, subd. (d); LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 939, 947-951 [corporate representative lacked personal knowledge to testify regarding events predating her employment by defendant and could not testify to hearsay].) Mr. Hernandez seeks to testify to facts regarding Stucco's color coat manufactured in the 1970's, long before Mr. Hernandez began working at Stucco in 1996. "(Defense Exhibit T at 3 ["I have been associated with Mission Stucco Company since 1996."].)

Plaintiffs' objection to the former testimony of former Stucco employee James Wells taken on October 25, 2023, in a different matter, being read into the record at trial in another matter in Los Angeles on January 24, 2025, is SUSTAINED on the grounds of inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code 1200.) As Plaintiffs note, the fact that the deposition was admitted pursuant to some agreement in another trial does not make the deposition admissible here. Defendant failed to satisfy either the unavailability or interest-and-motive requirement of Evidence Code section 1292, subdivision (a). (See Berroteran v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.5th 867 895 ["The party urging admission of deposition testimony bears the burden of rebutting the general rule by submitting appropriate information justifying the admission of designated deposition testimony"].)

*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 August 5, 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). | |