Vassiliou v. General Electric CA5 filed 1/17/13 A

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » 5th Appellate District » 2013 » Vassiliou v. General Electric CA5 filed 1/17/13 A

State: California

Court: California Eastern District Court

Docket No: F063385

Case Date: 01/17/2013

Plaintiff: Vassiliou

Defendant: General Electric CA5 filed 1/17/13 Case Details

Preview:Filed 1/17/13 Vassiliou v. General Electric CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ANDREW VASSILIOU, F063385 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. CV54998) v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents.

OPINION

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. James A. Boscoe, Judge. Andrew Vassiliou, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Sedgwick LLP, Charles T. Sheldon and Derek S. Johnson for Defendant and Respondent General Electric Company. Brydon Hugo & Parker, John R. Brydon, Brian H. Buddell, Thomas J. Moses and Elsa Sham for Defendant and Respondent Union Carbide Corporation. Horvitz & Levy, Lisa Perrochet, Dean A. Bochner; DeHay & Elliston, Jennifer Judin and Eduardo Robles for Defendant and Respondent Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc.

-ooOooAppellant, Andrew Vassiliou, challenges the judgment dismissing his personal injury action against respondents, General Electric Company (GE), Union Carbide Corporation (Union Carbide) and Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (Kaiser Gypsum), entered after the trial court sustained respondents' demurrers to the third amended complaint without leave to amend. The court ruled that appellant had not stated a cause of action for injury resulting from exposure to toxic materials because he had not alleged that he was exposed to a particular product manufactured by any of these respondents. Appellant asserts that the information stated in the complaint is "not vague it is factual" and that the "defendants lied and tricked [the] judge." However, appellant has neither supported his contentions by argument or citation of authority nor met his burden to show reversible error. Moreover, the complaint is insufficient as a matter of law. Therefore, the judgment will be affirmed. BACKGROUND Appellant filed a complaint alleging that he was injured as a child by wallboard, ceiling tiles, and other unidentified asbestos containing products manufactured by multiple defendants, including GE and Union Carbide, between 1966 and 1973 at his parents' restaurant. Thereafter, appellant filed a first amended complaint, modifying the defendants but otherwise making the same allegations. Appellant later added Kaiser Gypsum as a Doe defendant. Kaiser Gypsum demurred to the first amended complaint. The trial court sustained the demurrer on the ground that the complaint was uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible and granted appellant leave to amend. Appellant then filed a second amended complaint stating a single cause of action for intentional tort specifically naming 13 defendants. Appellant alleged that he was

2.

injured when he was exposed to asbestos containing products. With respect to respondents, appellant alleged: "Defendant Union Carbide manufactured the following products or asbestos-containing components of the following products, phenolic resin used in plywood paneling used in the dining room of the restaurant, adhesive used to hold on the bar rail, acoustic ceiling tile, wallboard, tile, tile glue, fireboard, exterior stucco, material used in the fireplace flue. [

Download F063385.PDF