In Copyright Since September 11,
2000This web site is in no manner
affiliated with any Kaiser entity and the for profit PermanenteLink
for Translation of the Kaiser Papers PATHFINDER(search)
| ABOUT US |
CONTACT
| WHY
THE KAISERPAPERS
|
kaiserpapers.com/downey
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3 DEPARTMENT 308 HON. EMILIE H. ELIAS, JUDGE
4
5 BARRY BERNSON, et al., )
6 Plaintiffs, SUPERIOR COURT 7 vs. CASE NO. VC 046 716
8 CITY OF DOWNEY, et al., )
9 Defendants. ___________________________________) 10
11 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
12 Tuesday, October 23, 2007
13 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
14
15 FOR IRG: FAINSBERT, MASE & SNYDER, LLP BY: DAVID S. WHITE, ESQ. 16 RICHARD E. WIRICK, ESQ. 11835 West Olympic Boulevard 17 Suite 1100 Los Angeles, California 90064 18 (310)473-6400
19 FOR BOEING: BARG, COFFIN, LEWIS & TRAPP 20 BY: RICHARD C. COFFIN, ESQ. One Market 21 Steuart Tower, Suite 2700 San Francisco, California 94105-1475 22 (415)228-5400
23
24
25 (Appearances continued on next page.)
26 DAVID A. SALYER, CSR, RMR, CRR 27 Official Court Reporter License No. 4410 28
1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: (CONTINUED)
2 FOR DEFENDANTS: PRINDLE, DECKER & AMARO, LLP 3 BY: TODD A. FUSON, ESQ. 310 Golden Shore 4 4th Floor Long Beach, California 90802 5 (562)436-3946
6 FOR CITY OF DOWNEY: CARPENTER, ROTHANS & DUMONT 7 BY: JONATHAN D. REDFORD, ESQ. 888 South Figueroa Street 8 Suite 1960 Los Angeles, California 90017 9 (213)228-0400
10 FOR GEP MANAGEMENT: WILSON, PETTY, KOSMO & TURNER, LLP 11 (Court Call) BY: ROBIN A. WOFFORD, ESQ. 550 West C Street 12 Suite 1050 San Diego, California 92101-3532 13 (619)236-9600
14 IN PRO PER: JOHN IZUMI 15 LEONARD J. MARTIN FRANK SERRAO 16 H. BRUCE NORRBOM DEREK NORRBOM 17 JEFF M. HILL
18 FOR EZRALO: WILSON, ELSER 19 BY: RONALD R. MILLSAP, ESQ. 555 South Flower Street 20 Suite 2900 Los Angeles, California 90071 21 (213)443-5100
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 1
1 CASE NUMBER: VC 046 716
2 CASE NAME: BERNSON V. CITY OF DOWNEY
3 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007
4 DEPARTMENT 308 EMILIE H. ELIAS, JUDGE
5 REPORTER: DAVID A. SALYER, CSR 4410
6 TIME: 9:00 A.M.
7 -o0o-
8 THE COURT: Okay. Good morning.
9 All right. Let's start with Boeing.
10 I don't think the United States Government is an
11 indispensable party. The allegation is you are joint
12 tort-feasors and go ahead and cross-complain against them and
13 move it all to Federal Court.
14 MR. COFFIN: It doesn't work, and let me tell you why.
15 They are more than a joint and severable party.
16 If this case goes forward, it cannot be resolved
17 without deciding whether or not representations and warranties
18 of the United States and the deed for the property in
19 controversy were right or wrong. It just can't go forward for
20 the following reasons.
21 The property in controversy was owned and operated by
22 the United States for more than 50 years. Everybody agrees on
23 that.
24 When the U.S. decided that it wanted to transfer the
25 property, it was required by Federal law, CERCLA Section 120,
26 to conduct an environmental investigation and to determine if
27 hazardous materials were there and to conduct an environmental
28 remediation which they, under the law, had to certify was --
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 2
1 THE COURT: I read your papers.
2 MR. COFFIN: But in order to transfer this property,
3 they had to make explicit representations that all remedial
4 actions necessary to protect human health and the environment
5 had been conducted at this property.
6 THE COURT: Okay.
7 MR. COFFIN: These plaintiffs take the position that
8 they have suffered personal injuries as a result of residual
9 chemicals at the property when they were working there as a
10 movie studio.
11 This Court or a jury can't make a determination that
12 these plaintiffs were injured without impacting the
13 representations and warranties of the United States.
14 THE COURT: That's just not right.
15 You can have that in many cases where somebody sells a
16 house and -- in a simple case where somebody sells a house and
17 says we have a warranty that the slope is good and this or
18 that, and then something happens later, and you sue the first
19 person. And they go around, and they sue the second person if
20 they think there was a misrepresentation when they bought the
21 property.
22 Basically, you bought property or got property from the
23 Federal Government. Actually, it's not you. Downey, whoever
24 got the property in this chain of title along the way, you got
25 the property.
26 But they're claiming they got injured while they were
27 at the property because of all of you, and so it doesn't
28 matter if there is another tortfeasor out there who might also
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 3
1 have polluted the ground. They don't -- you can turn around
2 and point your finger at that other polluter all you want.
3 MR. COFFIN: Your Honor, this is a situation where
4 this -- the determination pursuant to CERCLA from my client's
5 perspective, Boeing's perspective, will be represented to you
6 and to any jury as an intervening cause for any potential
7 injury here.
8 THE COURT: Great. Do it.
9 MR. COFFIN: And if it is an intervening cause, then
10 there -- it is not simply a joint tortfeasor situation.
11 This is a determination by the United States that this
12 property was appropriate for use in the manner in which it was
13 being used by these plaintiffs.
14 THE COURT: So?
15 MR. COFFIN: And if the United States was wrong, that's
16 the United States' problem, not my problem.
17 And as a result, this is not simply a joint tortfeasor
18 situation. This is a situation where -- let me just refer you
19 to a couple of cases, your Honor, that I would ask you to take
20 a look at.
21 THE COURT: Yes.
22 MR. COFFIN: The Tualip Tribe case, 510 F.2d, 1337 and
23 the San Juaquin County case, 54 Cal. App. 4th, 1144.
24 In both of those cases on facts very analogous to the
25 facts here, the Court determined that it could not go forward
26 with the parties before it without impacting a right of the
27 United States and that the United States could not be joined
28 as a party because of sovereign immunity, which is exactly the
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 4
1 case here, and we cannot cross-claim against the United States
2 in this court.
3 THE COURT: So your theory is that because the United
4 States gave that piece of paper on the land that nobody can
5 ever sue?
6 MR. COFFIN: No.
7 THE COURT: Yes. That's what you're saying.
8 This case has to be dismissed because they have to be
9 an indispensable party, and they can't be an indispensable
10 party, and they can't be a party, so therefore this case is
11 over.
12 MR. COFFIN: No. Absolutely not. They have an
13 alternative forum.
14 In order to sue the indispensable party, they have to
15 sue them in Federal Court under the Federal Court Claims Act.
16 THE COURT: They don't have to sue them.
17 Why do they have to sue them? They work for people,
18 and they were exposed to chemicals. There are chemicals
19 there, and they are exposed to chemicals, and they sue on
20 that.
21 Let's take another example. Let's take an example.
22 Forget it's the United States Government. Pretend it's Joe
23 Blow owned that property before and then -- and warranted to
24 the next buyer that all the pollution was cleared up and
25 everything was fine and it was a great site and everybody
26 should build there and have a happy life there. And then
27 people claimed pollution. All right?
28 The person sues the person who is on the property when
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 5
1 they were on the property. There is no obligation to go back
2 and sue through history all the prior owners who also polluted
3 and warranted there was no pollution.
4 MR. COFFIN: True, your Honor.
5 THE COURT: True.
6 MR. COFFIN: But the difference here is that, one, it
7 is the United States and the determination was made pursuant
8 to Federal mandatory requirements of Federal law.
9 THE COURT: So?
10 MR. COFFIN: So --
11 THE COURT: Let's assume the property was owned by
12 Boeing and Boeing sold the property and Boeing had to clean it
13 up because it was part of a Superfund or whatever -- the
14 Superfunds and they were ordered to clean it up. And then it
15 was sold to somebody else, and it turned out there were
16 chemicals there.
17 Your position would be that because -- would you then
18 say they had to go back and sue Boeing?
19 MR. COFFIN: In the circumstance -- in that
20 circumstance, no.
21 THE COURT: How is that any different?
22 MR. COFFIN: It's different because this is a mandatory
23 obligation of the Federal Government.
24 THE COURT: So is the Superfund.
25 MR. COFFIN: When it transfers property.
26 THE COURT: There are many things that are mandatory
27 when you sell property that was a pollutant where they are
28 part of the Superfund stuff and they make you clean it up
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 6
1 before you can sell it. There are a lot of people that have
2 to clean up their property before they can sell it.
3 Gas stations are now being mandated to clean up.
4 People all over the place are being mandated to clean up their
5 plot by Federal law and State law.
6 MR. COFFIN: Certainly being mandated to clean up their
7 property. They do not have an obligation, as the United
8 States has an obligation under Section 120 of CERCLA, to make
9 explicit representations in a deed that goes with the property
10 that the property has been cleaned up to a given standard.
11 THE COURT: Why isn't that just your defense?
12 MR. COFFIN: Well --
13 THE COURT: It's just your defense. We got it. We
14 relied on it. We have a deed. We were promised by the
15 Federal Government this is clean.
16 Bring a summary judgment. Do whatever. So show it was
17 clean. But I don't see why that's a dismissal on an
18 indispensable party thing.
19 That's just saying, hey, we didn't do anything. We
20 were handed this property. The Federal Government represented
21 it was clean.
22 MR. COFFIN: Because I think if you look at these two
23 cases, your Honor, I think when you look at them, they are
24 directly analogous in that the United States had created a
25 situation where the parties before the Court were going to
26 have to interpret something the United States did.
27 THE COURT: No. You're telling me it's a recorded
28 deed. I don't have to interpret anything.
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 7
1 MR. COFFIN: In order for these plaintiffs to recover,
2 you're going to have to make a determination that that
3 representation in that deed, a mandatory determination under
4 CERCLA 120, was incorrect or negligent. That impacts the
5 United States. That impacts the other defendants in the case.
6 And I think under the cases interpreting 389(b), that
7 is exactly the kind of case where when plaintiffs have an
8 alternative forum, they can pursue all the necessary parties.
9 There is really no doubt that the U.S. would be
10 considered a necessary party here. The question is are they
11 an indispensable party. And in circumstances where the U.S.
12 can be sued by these plaintiffs if they choose to do so -- in
13 fact, they had the opportunity to pursue the United States in
14 the Federal Court and didn't oppose a motion to dismiss.
15 The circumstance is that 389(b), under the two cases
16 that I have cited to you, is exactly relevant.
17 THE COURT: That's where I make a ruling that impacts
18 them. Not having them in here doesn't impact the Federal
19 Government at all.
20 How does it impact? They're not here. I'm not ruling
21 that stops them from doing something or does something or
22 tells them to clean up the property or anything. Therefore,
23 they are not being impacted by any ruling made here.
24 MR. COFFIN: They are being impacted because any
25 determination that these plaintiffs have, in fact, incurred
26 some personal injury is a determination that the
27 representation in those deeds was incorrect or negligent.
28 THE COURT: I don't know that that's true.
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 8
1 MR. COFFIN: I think it is true. Because the
2 representation in deeds is that the property has been cleaned
3 up to a standard that protects human health and the
4 environment.
5 And a determination is that these plaintiffs have
6 somehow been injured is a determination that that
7 representation is incorrect, and by virtue of that
8 determination, you would be making a ruling with regard to the
9 appropriateness of the representation of the United States.
10 It is precisely analogous to the cases I cited.
11 THE COURT: I think so.
12 You want to say something? Who do you represent?
13 MR. WHITE: I'm David White, and I represent the IRG
14 defendants along with Mr. Wirick, who is somewhere here.
15 And I want to say this, your Honor. This is close to a
16 unique transaction. When your Honor says isn't this just like
17 such and such, it's not. It's not at all.
18 This arises out of the military base closures of the
19 mid '90s. And this was actually an early transfer under the
20 statute. I don't know how many early transfers there were.
21 But when the United States Government set this in
22 motion, they, in their deed, represented and warranted that
23 the property was suitable for non-residential use.
24 Based on that representation and warranty, the entire
25 early transfer procedure kicked in, which included a
26 declaration of some sort by the Governor and a lot of things
27 happening very quickly, directly in reliance on the Federal
28 Government saying this property is okay from a pollution
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 9
1 environmental standpoint for non-residential use.
2 In fact, they have built a hospital there.
3 THE COURT: Then that's your defense.
4 MR. WHITE: It's really the very essence of the case.
5 And what Mr. Coffin is saying, it does make the U.S. an
6 indispensable party.
7 THE COURT: I don't know that that is the essence of
8 the case. I'm not sure what the essence of the case is.
9 MR. WHITE: I will join you in that comment, your
10 Honor.
11 THE COURT: I mean, they have a lot of people here,
12 including employers. And I think part of this case has to do
13 with things they were exposed to that may not have been in the
14 land. But I can't be sure of that. So I don't know --
15 MR. WHITE: We don't know from the pleadings. That is
16 the next motions we will talk about. We don't know from the
17 pleadings what they are actually alleging in terms of actual
18 exposure.
19 THE COURT: I mean -- I think -- I don't know. What
20 are you claiming?
21 I mean, it doesn't make -- it seems to me that they're
22 talking about negligence, ultrahazardous activities, all of
23 these things. They are not all relating to property in
24 general anyhow, property at all, anyhow.
25 MR. HILL: Well, your Honor, Jeffrey Hill, pro per.
26 In that deed transfer, it states they were not supposed
27 to excavate.
28 Dreamworks pulled a permit in the City of Downey.
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 10
1 There is a picture of the excavation, approximately six
2 million cubic feet of dirt.
3 The nuclear reactor was in this site. I was exposed to
4 that dirt for 14 days. I have had cancer. My thyriod has
5 been removed.
6 I was also in building number 6 that they did not do an
7 environmental impact report.
8 If I may entertain the Court, I got one of Boeing's --
9 your Honor is talking about the conditions on a recording.
10 So we were exposed. I was exposed before anybody here.
11 I have the early transfer September 16th, "Governor
12 Davis approves transfer of former NASA site in Downey." It
13 states at the bottom -- I can't believe it.
14 Twenty-one and a half million -- City of Downey
15 acquired the property for 200 and a half million, of which
16 20.5 million will be allocated to complete a soil test and
17 provide significant levels of environmental insurance.
18 THE COURT: That isn't what I asked.
19 MR. HILL: I don't know what these -- what they're
20 suing for. There is also mold exposure from building to
21 building, asbestos. From building to building, it was
22 different.
23 MR. SERRAO: Can I speak?
24 MR. HILL: There is an asbestos covenant.
25 MR. COFFIN: Your Honor, to the extent these plaintiffs
26 are taking the position that residual chemicals from the
27 historical use of this property as a NASA site, that issue is
28 exactly the issue that the United States dealt with for
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 11
1 purposes of transferring the property under its mandatory
2 duties.
3 THE COURT: At this point this case cannot be
4 dismissed. At this point you are pled as a joint tortfeasor,
5 and stay tune down the line. We have to do something about
6 this case anyhow.
7 MR. COFFIN: Your Honor, one sort of side matter, which
8 is that, just so the record is clear, there were 4 pro per
9 plaintiffs who filed a response to the motion. There are
10 16 pro per plaintiffs left in this case.
11 THE COURT: I don't know what we're doing here.
12 And that's a good issue. I have five people here. I
13 didn't get five pleadings.
14 You cannot join in pleadings. I don't know how you can
15 join in pleadings -- I don't know how you can join in
16 pleadings of somebody who is representing himself because he
17 is not allowed to represent you. So this is not doable how
18 this is being done.
19 State your name when you speak, please.
20 MR. MARTIN: Your Honor, Leonard Martin, in pro per
21 plaintiff.
22 What would you like us to do? When I do my pleadings,
23 they are all going to be the same for all the plaintiffs. So
24 we can have 16 identical ones, and just the name would be
25 different on the top.
26 THE COURT: But we don't have 16 people filing things.
27 I only received things from two of you. Two filed
28 things, and one person joined in. That's only three. Is
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 12
1 there another one?
2 MR. COFFIN: There were two joinders, your Honor.
3 THE COURT: I only saw one joinder. But I have more
4 than that. I have five people here.
5 So who didn't even file a joint joinder?
6 MR. HILL: Me.
7 THE COURT: You can't do that. If you -- let me
8 explain it to you this way.
9 If you don't file written oppositions, you don't get to
10 be heard and you're considered not having opposed things and
11 things just happen.
12 MR. MARTIN: Your Honor, may I speak?
13 THE COURT: Yes.
14 MR. MARTIN: There was a letter I received from Ezralo.
15 THE COURT: Who?
16 MR. MARTIN: The attorney for Ezralo.
17 MR. MILLSAP: Ronald Millsap on behalf of Ezralo.
18 MR. MARTIN: There was no demurrer or anything filed
19 from them, but yet they are still in. They sent us
20 something -- it was an answer to the first-amended complaint?
21 MR. MILLSAP: Yes, your Honor. We filed an answer to
22 the first-amended complaint. I then subsequently spoke with
23 Mr. Martin.
24 We sent him an affidavit stating that the Ezralo
25 company has no ownership, never owned, controlled or had
26 possession of the property in this which is the subject of
27 this litigation, and we had therefore requested that we be
28 dismissed from the action.
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 13
1 THE COURT: That has nothing to do with what I'm
2 talking about right now.
3 MR. MILLSAP: No, it doesn't, your Honor.
4 THE COURT: That has nothing to do with what I'm
5 talking about right now.
6 I'm talking about that if you're going to represent
7 yourselves, you have to file your own papers and you have to
8 represent yourself.
9 And if an opposition is not received by somebody, then
10 that person is deemed to have agreed to the motion, and the
11 motion is going to be granted.
12 That's how it works. That's how it would work if you
13 were a lawyer, and that is how it works if you represent
14 yourselves.
15 So if you don't file, you don't have any standing to
16 object to the order and the order gets made if I think it
17 should be made.
18 Yes?
19 MR. MARTIN: When we filed something for the ex parte
20 for extension of time, I think at that time you didn't want a
21 whole bunch of --
22 THE COURT: I was being nice to you all, and I decided
23 to let you do that, but I can't let you do that on
24 oppositions.
25 MR. SERRAO: That is something we're trying to clear up
26 right now.
27 THE COURT: I can't let you just --
28 MR. MARTIN: You took one --
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 14
1 THE COURT: No. No. I just thought if I gave you an
2 extension, it made no sense not to give it to everybody.
3 But I can't let you file oppositions because you have
4 different interests. It sounds like you have different kinds
5 of complaints, too.
6 We have to really straighten this out as to what your
7 complaints are. Maybe we ought to go there. Let's go there
8 for a second.
9 Let's start out with this. You're telling me -- how
10 many plaintiffs do we all think there are?
11 MR. COFFIN: We understand there are 16 who have not
12 filed dismissals with prejudice, your Honor.
13 THE COURT: Okay.
14 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, I filed a declaration of David
15 S. White re non-opposition to the IRG defendants.
16 THE COURT: I have IRG right here.
17 MR. WHITE: And we listed on page 3 of that,
18 paragraph 5, the following plaintiffs that we received no
19 opposition from.
20 May I just read those names?
21 THE COURT: Okay. But I was trying to figure out how
22 many you think totally --
23 Before I get to the individual motions and who filed
24 oppositions to which one, I told you I only got -- I don't
25 know if I got more or less than you got, but I'm trying to
26 figure out how many plaintiffs we even think are in this case.
27 MR. WHITE: Ms. Tehan, my paralegal, keeps track of
28 that.
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 15
1 May I ask she respond to the Court's question?
2 MS. TEHAN: I have a total of 17, your Honor.
3 MR. WHITE: Ms. Tehan says 17, if you didn't hear her.
4 THE COURT: You think you have 17 plaintiffs, and we
5 only have 5 here.
6 So is anyone here in communication with the other
7 plaintiffs?
8 MR. MARTIN: I am. Leonard Martin, plaintiff.
9 I have spoken to some of them on the phone, and they
10 don't know what to do. They don't have an attorney. They
11 just said they don't know what to do. They get a lot of
12 papers in, and they don't know what to do.
13 THE COURT: Okay.
14 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: A lot of our problem is we're
15 still seeking an attorney. We have some that are looking at
16 it.
17 MR. SERRAO: I have one only that is real interested
18 that I have to see after these proceedings.
19 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: I have contacted well over
20 30 attorneys and various excuses.
21 THE COURT: Well, they may not want to have the case.
22 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: Only because we had an attorney
23 that walked out on our case. It's one of their bigger
24 complaints.
25 THE COURT: Well --
26 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: That and the fact everything was
27 happening so fast that they wanted us to get past this point.
28 THE COURT: If they want to get past this point, they
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 16
1 probably ought to come here.
2 What are you claiming as your ailments? Give me your
3 name and what you're claiming.
4 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: My name is Harold Norrbom,
5 N-O-R-R-B-O-M.
6 THE COURT: Okay.
7 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: I have been diagnosed with an
8 auto-immune disease. For some reason I have chronic
9 urticaria, and I'm claiming brain damage.
10 THE COURT: You're what?
11 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: Brain damage.
12 THE COURT: Who did you work for?
13 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: What do you mean by that?
14 THE COURT: Who was your employer?
15 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: EP is actually the employer.
16 It's Dreamworks, but EP is what it always ends up being.
17 MR. SERRAO: The payroll company is Entertainment
18 Partners.
19 THE COURT: Okay. I got it.
20 Who are you?
21 MR. SERRAO: My name is Frank Serrao.
22 THE COURT: Spell your last name.
23 MR. SERRAO: S-E-R-R-A-O.
24 THE COURT: Okay. And what is your ailment?
25 MR. SERRAO: Well, chronic sinus infections that I
26 never had before. I have no allergies, never been -- had any
27 allergies.
28 You know, headaches, sore throats, can't sleep, you
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 17
1 know, just numerous things that the two doctors that I went to
2 on the Worker's Comp said that are industrial related.
3 THE COURT: Okay. And who did you work for?
4 MR. SERRAO: The same people, Entertainment Partners
5 and Dreamworks.
6 THE COURT: He didn't say Dreamworks.
7 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: It's confusing. It's like when
8 you fill out Unemployment or anything, you say Dreamworks, but
9 it always ends up being Entertainment Partners.
10 THE COURT: No, it's not. You can't represent. You
11 cannot represent them.
12 MR. MARTIN: I'm not.
13 THE COURT: Good.
14 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: The motion picture was a
15 Dreamworks production, and we were paid through Entertainment
16 Partners.
17 THE COURT: Was there one movie made there? Is that
18 what this is about? You said the movie.
19 MR. SERRAO: We all worked on the same movie except for
20 Jeff Hill.
21 THE COURT: And one movie was filmed at the site; is
22 that it?
23 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: There have been several movies,
24 but the one we worked at was --
25 THE COURT: Explain something to me. They built a
26 studio there; is that what happened?
27 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: They used it as a studio.
28 MR. SERRAO: They used the old buildings as the
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 18
1 studios.
2 Can I say one thing?
3 THE COURT: Yes.
4 MR. SERRAO: The defendants say that that place was
5 cleaned up per the reports. I have -- the place was loaded
6 with asbestos tiles that I had samples of that I had tested.
7 THE COURT: I'm not into that right now. I'm trying to
8 understand what's going on here. It will all make sense to
9 you in a minute.
10 MR. SERRAO: Okay.
11 THE COURT: Who else do we have?
12 MR. MARTIN: Plaintiff Leonard Martin.
13 THE COURT: Okay. I'm making a chart here.
14 Mr. Martin? What are your ailments?
15 MR. MARTIN: I worked for Dreamworks, payroll company
16 Entertainment Partners, on a feature film, "The Island," in
17 2004.
18 Prior to that, I worked for a feature film called
19 "Daredevil" in 2002, production company 20th Century Fox,
20 payment company Entertainment Partners.
21 THE COURT: Was 20th Century Fox on this property, too?
22 MR. MARTIN: In 2002.
23 THE COURT: Is 20th Century Fox represented there?
24 MR. COFFIN: They are not named.
25 MR. WIRICK: They are not sued.
26 MR. MARTIN: I'm just mentioning it because I worked
27 there twice.
28 THE COURT: What is your ailment?
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 19
1 MR. MARTIN: Mine started out with just a flu with the
2 cough, sore throat, and so I went to the doctors and had a
3 blood test done. And I've got this satratoxins which is from
4 the black mold.
5 This is all the stuff in my blood -- I had a blood
6 test -- trichothecene, or whatever that is, and another one
7 that starts with A-F-L-A toxins.
8 So is that --
9 THE COURT: I understand. It all arises out of mold.
10 Is that what it's from?
11 MR. MARTIN: Partially, yeah. Mold is part of it, and
12 then when they were doing work removing asbestos, they had
13 their suits on, but we did not.
14 And whenever they had to work up above putting the
15 rigging on, those --
16 THE COURT: But what disease do you have from asbestos?
17 MR. MARTIN: Pardon?
18 THE COURT: What disease do you have from asbestos
19 exposure?
20 MR. MARTIN: That they can't tell for another 15, 20
21 years. That is something we can't tell right now.
22 Right now I have reactive airway disease. That is what
23 my doctor stated in a doctor report. And that's caused from
24 mold exposure.
25 THE COURT: Okay.
26 MR. MARTIN: It effects the upper and lower
27 respiratory. It also affects the liver.
28 THE COURT: I understand.
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 20
1 MR. MARTIN: The kidneys.
2 THE COURT: Sir, in the back, what is your last name?
3 MR. HILL: Hill.
4 THE COURT: Mr. Hill, you have thyriod cancer?
5 MR. HILL: No. My thyriod during the pre-op for the
6 cancer surgery -- Dr. Kurihawa at Bob Hope Clinic was doing
7 the follow-up pre-op, and he noticed I had a lump on the side
8 of my neck.
9 He did an ultrasound. Was amazed at how large the --
10 the thyroid was continually growing. I had to have that
11 removed. It was starting to close my throat.
12 It happened within less than a year of working at the
13 place.
14 THE COURT: So you had a thyroid condition but not
15 thyroid cancer.
16 MR. HILL: Forget the cells. They did a biopsy before
17 they did the surgery, and they took it out. It was like the
18 size of two fists growing substernally.
19 THE COURT: Okay.
20 MR. HILL: Then I have a CT scan of my sinuses, chronic
21 infection. I have pictures of my skin peeling off all the way
22 to the bone almost.
23 THE COURT: You have chronic sinus.
24 MR. HILL: And CT scan of my chest, collapsed lung
25 cells.
26 THE COURT: Because of the sinus infection?
27 MR. HILL: The sinuses and my upper respiratory system
28 with collapsed lung cells.
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 21
1 My case, Workmen's Comp, is through Cast and Crew.
2 We're going to be settling.
3 And then I'm talking to an attorney because he wants to
4 know about the third party, and all this other stuff has to be
5 going on behind the scenes, how much they are going to be
6 paying because I have a massive amount of doctors' bills since
7 I have worked there.
8 And that's going to be paid by the Workmen's Comp, and
9 they want to know -- the attorney I'm talking to wants to know
10 what's happening with the other people.
11 THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Who did you work for?
12 MR. HILL: I worked for Cast and Crew.
13 THE COURT: That is a loan-out company or something?
14 MR. HILL: A payroll company. I was working on the
15 production "Taxi."
16 MS. WOFFORD: Robin Wofford.
17 He worked on what production?
18 MR. HILL: "Taxi."
19 THE COURT: Sir, what's your last name?
20 MR. DEREK NORRBOM: Norrbom.
21 THE COURT: Did you work there too?
22 MR. DEREK NORRBOM: I worked on "The Island" for
23 Dreamworks, Entertainment Partners.
24 THE COURT: Okay. So I have to distinguish the two of
25 you. What is your first initial?
26 MR. DEREK NORRBOM: Derek, D.
27 THE COURT: And you worked on which company?
28 MR. DEREK NORRBOM: I worked on the film "The Island,"
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 22
1 and that was -- the payroll was Entertainment Partners, and
2 that was for Dreamworks.
3 THE COURT: And what is your ailments?
4 MR. DEREK NORRBOM: Basically the same thing with the
5 flu-like symptoms, the chronic sinus infections, also mental
6 damage. I have been diagnosed with depression since then and
7 a few other mental related illnesses.
8 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
9 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: Your Honor, Harold Norrbom,
10 party in pro per.
11 The majority of us are all suffering from mold
12 exposure, definitely, and some of which would be chemical
13 exposure. All the symptoms of mold exposure.
14 THE COURT: Now you're saying mold?
15 I have an idea. Here's my idea.
16 We now have a program here that the court called
17 early -- neutral evaluation where you sit down with a bunch of
18 lawyers or a lawyer -- I can show you the list of people --
19 and they try to value the case. And I think this may be the
20 perfect case to go there.
21 If you all could get copies of the medical reports --
22 let me --
23 MR. HILL: Okay.
24 THE COURT: I get to talk. Unfortunately for you, but
25 in this job, when I talk, I get to talk.
26 If we could do that, sit down with somebody and let all
27 these individuals make their pitch and explain what they have.
28 And, meanwhile, you have seen the medical records. You
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 23
1 might get some early evaluation on this case that might some
2 day facilitate a resolution of it.
3 They have this new program. It's free. I can show you
4 the list of lawyers. You get to pick the lawyer off of it
5 that it's -- that you want. It's free for three hours.
6 It might be effective in a case like this where you
7 have individuals who do not have counsel that can help them
8 evaluate the pros and cons of their case to have somebody look
9 at it.
10 You're going to raise your hand and tell me why you
11 don't like that idea.
12 MR. COFFIN: No, your Honor.
13 My only question was who are the plaintiffs at this
14 point since we have --
15 THE COURT: I'm looking at five, but I have to -- I'm
16 looking at five that are sitting here.
17 With regard to the others, I think the answer is going
18 to be you will have to send out discovery. I can't make
19 people -- you have to do things that make people do things
20 before I can do anything, to put it that way.
21 But I think --
22 MR. COFFIN: One of the reasons I ask is even though
23 your Honor is inclined not to grant the Boeing motion as to
24 those who opposed, what happens to those who didn't?
25 THE COURT: I don't get an opposition, I'm supposed to
26 grant them unless there is something -- I'm supposed to grant
27 them.
28 MR. WHITE: Right.
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 24
1 MR. COFFIN: So if that were the case, then we really
2 would be talking about --
3 THE COURT: Five people.
4 MR. COFFIN: -- four people.
5 THE COURT: I gather the fifth who didn't do it was the
6 younger Norrbom.
7 MR. DEREK NORRBOM: No. I filed.
8 MR. WHITE: Mr. Hill.
9 MR. COFFIN: Mr. Hill did not file. The two Norrboms
10 filed joinders.
11 THE COURT: That is why I saw them as one.
12 MR. WHITE: We have two from the two Norrboms,
13 Mr. Serrao and Mr. Martin, your Honor.
14 THE COURT: So I have Mr. Hill here. Mr. Hill came so
15 I really can't dismiss his case.
16 So I see it, I'm looking at the five people, and I'm
17 hearing what they have to say, and I'm thinking this might be
18 a really good case to use that program if I got -- please let
19 me finish -- if I got them to first give you releases relative
20 to their medical records, which I assume which you want to
21 see -- I assume you would want to see the records from the
22 Worker's Comp that has made some determination there is some
23 medical there.
24 If they had time to do all of that, it might be good to
25 sit down and let them have some lawyer talk to them about what
26 goes on in this case, kind of a case. A neutral person. It's
27 a really good list of people.
28 Now, sir.
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 25
1 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: I don't think any of our
2 Workmen's Comp cases -- they are still ongoing.
3 THE COURT: But you may have some medical reports in
4 there.
5 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: And then what is the name of the
6 program?
7 THE COURT: It's early -- They took early out of it.
8 It's neutral evaluation. They are lawyers who volunteer for
9 three hours, and if it goes more than three hours, you have to
10 pay them.
11 But I have the literature sitting on my desk, and I can
12 show it to you. I think it might be a good thing to do here.
13 MR. SERRAO: Frank Serrao in pro per.
14 Now, would that program address the asbestos exposure
15 aspect of it also?
16 THE COURT: You would tell these -- what it is is a
17 program wherein you tell -- you give your pitch to an
18 independent lawyer who is sitting as sort of a settlement or
19 evaluator, give your pitch to them, show them what you've got,
20 and it may take longer than three hours, in which case
21 somebody will have to pay.
22 Give your pitch, show it to them. The defense says why
23 they think what you're saying is not going to make them liable
24 or this or that, and then these lawyers give an evaluation of
25 what they think the chances are on this case.
26 It might just be a worthwhile thing to be doing.
27 MR. SERRAO: Also the lead paint would fall in that.
28 THE COURT: I don't know. You keep adding things.
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 26
1 MR. SERRAO: I know because I keep forgetting.
2 THE COURT: The lead paint is not the issue with the
3 owners of the property. The lead paint I assume you would
4 have worked on with your employer?
5 MR. SERRAO: It was in the building peeling off the
6 ceiling and walls as we worked in the building that was
7 supposedly cleaned up.
8 THE COURT: Who owned the building, the City of Downey?
9 At some point you owned it, the City of Downey?
10 MR. WHITE: There is a several-year period which I
11 think is impacted by what I think the plaintiffs' claims are.
12 Some of that period -- and then there were two
13 transfers ultimately to the entity that now owns it which is
14 part of the IRG defendants.
15 But for some of the time, the City of Downey owned it
16 because of the two transfers. We really would have to get
17 specific. There are, I believe, five parcels that were put
18 together in two different transfers.
19 I still don't have enough information from the
20 plaintiffs to tell you who owned what when, but the City of
21 Downey owned it before the Downey entity, one of the IRG
22 defendants, took title to it, all of it.
23 THE COURT: Okay. So I guess my question is -- he is
24 holding his head already. Either that, or you're reading your
25 Blackberry.
26 MR. WIRICK: No. No. No. I'm not.
27 THE COURT: I think the question is what is the minimum
28 that you all need before I can have everybody sit down? I
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 27
1 think that just might be the way to go on this.
2 MS. WOFFORD: Your Honor, this is Robin Wofford for
3 Entertainment Partners.
4 I would just like to say I'm fine with the neutral
5 evaluation, but I'm not sure that Entertainment Partners would
6 be a part of it.
7 I would really like a ruling on our motion because we
8 have Worker's Comp claims for the five folks who have already
9 spoken.
10 THE COURT: You may be out of here if you're the
11 employer of all these people. You shouldn't be here. It's
12 precluded by Worker's Comp unless they are claiming you had --
13 they are claiming the other matters, but I don't have anything
14 to -- they haven't really given me anything that shows that it
15 would be outside of Worker's Comp.
16 Yes, sir?
17 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: Bruce Norrbom.
18 THE COURT: Now that we have two Norrboms, I need to
19 have it.
20 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: We're always kind of stuck
21 between -- the motion picture industry is kind of weird, and
22 we're kind of always stuck between Dreamworks and
23 Entertainment Partners.
24 THE COURT: Who is your Worker's Comp claims against?
25 MR. SERRAO: Entertainment Partners.
26 THE COURT: Then Entertainment Partners can't be in
27 this case.
28 MR. HILL: I have no problem with dismissing mine, Cast
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 28
1 and Crew. I worked there September --
2 THE COURT: Let's talk about Entertainment Partners.
3 You're not suing Entertainment Partners?
4 MR. HILL: No.
5 THE COURT: Mr. Hill is not suing Entertainment
6 Partners.
7 Mr. Martin, are you suing Entertainment Partners?
8 MR. MARTIN: I filed a dismissal for Entertainment
9 Partners.
10 THE COURT: You filed a dismissal.
11 The other three of you agree that Entertainment
12 Partners was your employer?
13 MR. SERRAO: Correct.
14 THE COURT: You filed your Worker's Comp claim against
15 Entertainment Partners?
16 MR. SERRAO: Well, I believe that is who was paying the
17 Worker's Comp insurance. I could be wrong. I'm not sure.
18 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: We're a little confused.
19 THE COURT: Entertainment Partners, are you paying
20 their Worker's Comp insurance?
21 MS. WOFFORD: Yes, your Honor.
22 THE COURT: They should be out of this case.
23 MR. MARTIN: That is correct.
24 THE COURT: Thank you.
25 MR. SERRAO: That won't have any bearing on our
26 Worker's Comp if I sign anything that says with prejudice?
27 THE COURT: No. They are just dismissed from this
28 lawsuit and the Worker's Comp claim because that is carved
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 29
1 out. That is over in the Worker's Comp system.
2 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: So then I and my son are willing
3 to dismiss them.
4 THE COURT: Okay. So Entertainment Partners, you are
5 out of this lawsuit. Okay?
6 MS. WOFFORD: Thank you, your Honor.
7 THE COURT: You go do it in Worker's Comp. All right?
8 Great.
9 MR. FUSON: Todd Fuson. I represent Dreamworks also.
10 THE COURT: Now, Dreamworks, I don't know how you fit
11 into this Worker's Comp.
12 MR. FUSON: We don't exactly know either.
13 THE COURT: Then you're not out now.
14 MR. FUSON: When you look at the complaint, it's very
15 vague. There is nothing for us to defend against in the
16 complaint as to the demurrer.
17 The complaint needs to be fixed up. We don't know when
18 they alleged that they worked for Dreamworks. We don't know
19 what they alleged they did for Dreamworks.
20 THE COURT: We're going to deal with that in a
21 different way.
22 MR. FUSON: Okay. Thank you.
23 THE COURT: The bottom line, you are not out because
24 you're questionable whether you're the employer.
25 Everybody agrees that Entertainment Partners is the
26 employer.
27 MR. SERRAO: We were put there in Downey Studios by
28 Dreamworks to do the movie "The Island," which was a
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 30
1 Dreamworks production.
2 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: That is where we keep --
3 MR. SERRAO: They rented the building.
4 THE COURT: I understand.
5 MR. SERRAO: The property.
6 THE COURT: Entertainment Partners, is the Worker's
7 Comp case only against Entertainment Partners or also against
8 Dreamworks?
9 MS. WOFFORD: This is Robin Wofford.
10 It is against both. The way it works, if I can offer
11 up a offer of proof for trial, Entertainment Partners is the
12 general employer. Dreamworks is the special employer.
13 The Worker's Comp claims were filed against
14 Entertainment Partners, but I believe Dreamworks was joined
15 in.
16 I apologize. I do not have my file. Because of the
17 fire, I haven't been able to get in the office. I can't give
18 you the specifics. I can't look at the Worker's Comp file and
19 tell you for sure, but I'm pretty sure that is accurate.
20 THE COURT: I think we will leave Dreamworks until we
21 get that sorted out. Entertainment Partners is now out.
22 MS. WOFFORD: Do you need formal dismissals filed, or
23 are you just dismissing it?
24 THE COURT: I am dismissing it because it is precluded
25 by Worker's Comp. However you worded it. We have taken care
26 of you.
27 Now, with regard to -- because I think -- here is what
28 I think. I think that we ought to go ahead with some
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 31
1 discovery that you would need to, number one, sort out the
2 issues in the complaints; and, number two, to get the medicals
3 and to get something started so I can send you to this
4 program.
5 If there is not a counsel on the other side, I think
6 this is probably the best way to try to get some resolution or
7 some direction relative to this case.
8 So that is what I think you should do. I think
9 spending time fine tuning the complaints will not be a
10 worthwhile exercise. It would be easier to do it with some
11 discovery and, if need be, summary judgment, summary
12 adjudication motions.
13 So I'm inclined to overrule the other demurrers because
14 I know you want specificity. I know you want that, but it's
15 going to be a lot easier to do it with an interrogatory than
16 it will be to go over drafts and drafts and drafts and
17 complaints from individuals who do not have legal training.
18 We could be here for the next two years doing that.
19 Next?
20 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: If for some reason the attorney
21 we're speaking to does end up taking our case, where do we
22 stand then?
23 THE COURT: If the person does end up taking your case,
24 then --
25 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: Can he change this?
26 THE COURT: Change what?
27 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: The fact that you're wanting to
28 go to early --
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 32
1 THE COURT: I'm not accepting you now. It's not going
2 now. Trust me.
3 This case -- I'm assuming, maybe incorrectly, that the
4 defendants have not seen any of your medical records or
5 anything yet.
6 Is that a correct assumption?
7 MR. WHITE: That is correct. In any formal sense, we
8 have not seen any of that.
9 THE COURT: So I'm assuming that they don't even know
10 what years you were there. They don't know what year you're
11 claiming this happened.
12 I understand you're going to tell them, that you're
13 going to tell them in a formal answer to discovery.
14 Yes, sir.
15 MR. SERRAO: I don't know how they could say that
16 because in the demurrers they say that all of our conditions
17 were pre-existing.
18 THE COURT: Yes. But they can say whatever they want
19 in the demurrers. They have to see your medical records.
20 MR. SERRAO: I assumed they did with that statement.
21 THE COURT: They wouldn't be seeing your medical
22 records without you knowing it. That's why I'm assuming they
23 haven't seen it yet.
24 Either you need to sign a release for your medical
25 records, all of you, or they need to subpoena your medical
26 records, but they have to be able to get your medical records
27 in order to see.
28 You're saying you have a certain disease. It's not
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 33
1 going to do any good to go have somebody try to evaluate the
2 case without being able to see your records to see when you
3 got it, whether somebody really says you have it, what they
4 say the ramifications of having it, all of this.
5 So I think the way to do this -- now you will tell me
6 why you disagree -- is to get some minimal discovery. If you
7 have releases for medical, maybe everybody will sign them.
8 Let's get some picture on this thing.
9 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, may I inquire? This is David
10 White for the IRG defendants.
11 When the Court says that the Court is inclined to
12 overrule the demurrers, that would be as to the five
13 plaintiffs who are here today?
14 THE COURT: Yes.
15 MR. WHITE: Every other demurrer is sustained without
16 leave?
17 THE COURT: Yes. I have received no opposition. I'm
18 only talking about the five plaintiffs here.
19 As far as I'm concerned, the other 12 did not file
20 oppositions. They did not appear. Therefore, they have
21 effectively not opposed everything, and therefore the motions
22 are granted as to them. So I'm focusing on the five
23 individuals who are here.
24 MR. WHITE: Thank you, your Honor.
25 MR. COFFIN: How would you like to document that, your
26 Honor? Do you want us to submit proposed orders?
27 THE COURT: An order.
28 THE CLERK: Your Honor, there is a pro per on the phone
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 34
1 who checked in.
2 THE COURT: Is there a pro per on the phone who checked
3 in?
4 Sir, who you are?
5 MR. IZUMI: John Izumi.
6 THE COURT: We have a sixth.
7 Sir, have you heard what is going on?
8 MR. IZUMI: Yes.
9 THE COURT: So tell me now -- spell your last name to
10 me.
11 MR. IZUMI: I-Z-U-M-I.
12 THE COURT: All right, sir. What is your ailment?
13 MR. IZUMI: Basically the same as what the others have,
14 respiratory.
15 THE COURT: Okay.
16 MR. IZUMI: Skin lesions, headaches, depression.
17 THE COURT: And who do you work for?
18 MR. IZUMI: Dreamworks, paid by -- Entertainment
19 Partners was the payroll company.
20 THE COURT: Okay. So are you -- did you file a
21 Worker's Comp claim against Entertainment Partners?
22 MR. IZUMI: Yes.
23 THE COURT: All right. So are you ready to dismiss
24 them from this lawsuit, and you can just go ahead in Worker's
25 Comp against Entertainment Partners?
26 MR. IZUMI: No. Not at this time.
27 THE COURT: Well --
28 MR. IZUMI: You know what? I'm just following the
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 35
1 crowd right now. I don't know what's going on.
2 THE COURT: The thing is if you have a Worker's Comp
3 claim, if they are your employer and you're pursuing Worker's
4 Comp, you can't pursue them also in court.
5 MR. IZUMI: Okay.
6 THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Martin.
7 MR. MARTIN: I just wanted to repeat so that plaintiff
8 John Izumi on the telephone can understand that the rest of us
9 plaintiffs dismissed Entertainment Partners for the simple
10 fact that Entertainment Partners is just a payroll company and
11 we filed our Workmen's Comp against Entertainment Partners.
12 So they have no reason to be left in this, and they should be
13 dismissed.
14 So I just wanted to repeat that in case John Izumi did
15 not hear that.
16 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Izumi, are you -- do you want to
17 dismiss them now? If not, I'm going to probably dismiss them
18 anyhow because they were your employer; is that correct? And
19 you filed a Worker's Comp case against them?
20 MR. IZUMI: Yes.
21 THE COURT: Okay. You do not choose to voluntarily
22 dismiss them. I will dismiss them because it is -- the
23 exclusive remedy is Worker's Compensation. Okay?
24 MR. IZUMI: Objection.
25 THE COURT: Now, sir, you heard what I'm saying.
26 You have to file oppositions to papers. I'm going to
27 give you -- we're going to consider you having opposed it
28 because you took the time to get on the phone.
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 36
1 In the future, you have to file your own opposition
2 papers or else it's deemed that the matter is unopposed, and
3 then these motions will be granted against you.
4 Do you understand that?
5 MR. IZUMI: Not really, no.
6 THE COURT: Okay. If you're going to represent
7 yourself, you have to file -- follow rules that we have, which
8 is you must file oppositions to motions. You cannot just
9 appear by telephone and tell me you're opposing a motion.
10 MR. IZUMI: Yes.
11 THE COURT: Do you understand that?
12 MR. IZUMI: Okay.
13 THE COURT: Okay. That's just how it works. We have
14 to follow certain procedures. So as of now, you have to file
15 your own. Everybody has been warned.
16 So now what I'm talking about is having some discovery
17 sent out, and let's see how soon we can get what you need so
18 we can do something with this case.
19 MR. IZUMI: Yes.
20 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, as a matter of clarification
21 because I think the transcript is going to be a little hard to
22 figure at this point.
23 THE COURT: Oh, I'm sure it will be.
24 MR. WHITE: Let me see if I can help.
25 THE COURT: Good.
26 MR. WHITE: Six plaintiffs then will be deemed to have
27 opposed either by appearance or by papers and are still in the
28 case. Those are Mr. Izumi, Mr. Hill, Mr. Serrao, Mr. Martin
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 37
1 and the elder and younger Mr. Norrbom.
2 THE COURT: That's correct.
3 MR. WHITE: Those are the six still in. Every other
4 plaintiff is out.
5 THE COURT: As to everyone else, the motions are
6 granted. So as to Boeing's motion, it's granted as to those
7 who did not oppose.
8 MR. WHITE: Right.
9 THE COURT: As to IRG, it's granted as to those who did
10 not oppose.
11 MR. WHITE: Right. Except you don't actually mean
12 didn't oppose. You mean either here in some way or opposed.
13 THE COURT: Yes.
14 MR. WHITE: That is how you get to six.
15 THE COURT: That is how I get to six. That's what I'm
16 doing on the motions. Okay?
17 MR. WHITE: Thank you, your Honor.
18 THE COURT: So --
19 MR. WHITE: We have discovery outstanding.
20 Again, David White on behalf of the IRG defendants,
21 your Honor.
22 MR. COFFIN: I think all defendants have discovery
23 outstanding that is stayed.
24 THE COURT: It's stayed?
25 MR. COFFIN: That was stayed.
26 THE COURT: I'm going to lift the stay.
27 MR. WHITE: Lifting the stay.
28 THE COURT: So the stay on discovery lifted.
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 38
1 MR. WHITE: We should reserve to the six that are now
2 in the case.
3 THE COURT: And reserve to the six.
4 MR. WHITE: Thank you.
5 THE COURT: And give them time to respond.
6 But this means you're going to get sent a bunch of
7 questions to ask.
8 Are you asking for document production, medical
9 documents?
10 MR. WHITE: Yes.
11 THE COURT: They are going to ask you for all of these
12 things. You need to respond to their discovery that is sent
13 out to you now at this point. Okay?
14 Yes, Mr. Martin.
15 MR. MARTIN: In regards to the defendants that aren't
16 here that are listed as defendants, where are they, and where
17 do they stand now?
18 THE COURT: I only ruled on the motions that are in
19 front of me.
20 MR. MARTIN: Okay.
21 THE COURT: Who is not here? Is somebody not here?
22 Who is not here?
23 MR. WHITE: Well, I think Mr. Martin may be referring
24 to the fact that when you look at the caption of the
25 first-amended complaint, it lists entities like the United
26 States of America and the Department of Interior, so forth.
27 They have been out of the case for a long time.
28 THE COURT: But everybody who is a viable defendant is
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 39
1 here today.
2 MR. WHITE: I think so.
3 THE COURT: Who do you think is not here?
4 MR. MARTIN: I have three administrative claims that
5 are filed against three of the government agencies that
6 were -- that I received papers from --
7 THE COURT: Which government? Because the Federal
8 Government doesn't come to this court.
9 MR. MARTIN: I don't know why I filed them, but I have
10 copies --
11 THE COURT: You understand they don't come here so we
12 can't expect them to show up.
13 MR. MARTIN: They are listed on there, and he's got
14 administrative claims filed against them in May of '07. I
15 don't know if you need to know that.
16 THE COURT: I'm only concerned with the people who were
17 served with the complaint and answered or demurred. Those are
18 the people that I consider having appeared here. So of that
19 group, I think we have everybody here.
20 MR. WHITE: You have all the defendants represented
21 this morning, your Honor.
22 THE COURT: Sometimes people file administrative
23 claims, and then they never file the lawsuit.
24 MR. MARTIN: Okay.
25 THE COURT: I can't explain it to you, but claims are
26 filed -- government claims have to be filed at certain times,
27 this and that, whatever. But I have no control over the
28 Federal Government. I do not do anything with them.
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 40
1 MR. MARTIN: Leonard Martin, in pro per.
2 With the one listed Downey Studios LLC dba William F.
3 White, would there be a defense attorney for William F. White?
4 MR. WHITE: I don't know what that reference is,
5 Mr. Martin. There is no William F. White that I'm aware of in
6 this case.
7 MR. MARTIN: He is listed on one of the forms of paper
8 that I have.
9 MR. WHITE: First I have heard of it, your Honor.
10 THE COURT: Do you have any idea who that is?
11 MR. HILL: I think that would go to L.A. Center
12 Studios.
13 MR. MARTIN: Yeah, they're listed.
14 MR. HILL: L.A. Center Studios.
15 MR. WHITE: They have never --
16 MR. HILL: That was listed on the initial lawsuit.
17 THE COURT: But they have to be served.
18 MR. WHITE: They have never been served or brought in
19 this case.
20 THE COURT: If they haven't been served or brought an
21 answer, they have to be in court. You have to serve them.
22 You have to bring them in.
23 The fact you list somebody -- I can't give you legal
24 advice. The fact that somebody is listed on a complaint does
25 not mean they are a party to the action. It just means
26 somebody listed them.
27 Until they are served and come here and default, they
28 are not here.
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 41
1 MR. MARTIN: Okay. Leonard Martin, plaintiff.
2 Question, where it says "Downey Studios LLC dba William
3 F. White, Inc.," I'm just questioning, by serving Downey
4 Studios, does that include William F. White, Inc.?
5 THE COURT: Why don't you show it to counsel. I have
6 no idea. I have no idea what you're talking about.
7 MR. WHITE: He is looking at something of Department of
8 Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and
9 Health letterhead.
10 MR. MARTIN: He was asking for a Cal OSHA report.
11 THE COURT: It doesn't matter. He may be a lawyer.
12 MR. WHITE: No. Because it's dba William F. White,
13 Inc.
14 Your Honor, I think that, as far as I know, is a
15 mistake. There is no William F. White involved in this in
16 relation to Downey Studios, which is part of the IRG
17 defendants.
18 MR. MARTIN: Here William F. White --
19 THE COURT: We have everybody we need to have here.
20 That is all I want to know.
21 Mr. Martin, if you want to serve people and add them to
22 this lawsuit, go ahead and do it. Right now I just wanted to
23 make sure that I have everybody that I think I need here.
24 Okay. So the discovery stay is going to be lifted.
25 Now, how long will it take before we can -- I know what
26 my question was. The plaintiffs here, do you have specific
27 doctors, and are you willing to sign releases so that the
28 defense can get a copy of your medical records?
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 42
1 That made me think, while they are thinking of that, I
2 had a question to the defense. I assume you're sending out a
3 joint set and you're not going to bombard them with a whole
4 bunch of sets?
5 MR. WHITE: That did not happen so far. Everybody sent
6 out -- each of the defendants --
7 THE COURT: I assume they are going to be repetitive.
8 MR. WHITE: Given the nature of the case, I assume they
9 are, your Honor.
10 THE COURT: Let's get one set.
11 MR. WHITE: I haven't read them.
12 MR. COFFIN: We can consolidate, your Honor.
13 THE COURT: So what I'm saying is the defense may send
14 out one set of discovery.
15 We're going to need a lot of trees after this whole
16 thing ends. It's fire season. So let's not do that. So one
17 set. Otherwise, it's just burdensome on the plaintiffs.
18 Now my question is -- that's on the defense side.
19 On the plaintiff's side, they need to see some of your
20 medical records. So they are going to be asking you for them,
21 and the question is whether you can sign releases so they can
22 get them that way.
23 I will only let one defendant get them. I won't let
24 them bombard your doctor. That is what I'm trying to do, to
25 make it so one defense does it.
26 I'm going to let them -- they are going to ask you if
27 you're going to sign releases. You don't have to do it. Then
28 they will go get them another way. But a lot of people just
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 43
1 sign releases and let the medical records be obtained.
2 So I think you ought to talk to the defense when we
3 finish here and see if you're willing to do that.
4 Yes, Mr. Martin.
5 MR. MARTIN: We got clarity on how many plaintiffs
6 there are, and I would like clarity on the names of the
7 defendants because of -- I think -- this is for the attorney
8 for Ezralo, and I don't think he is up to speed with all the
9 papers, all the documents that have been sent out to everyone.
10 THE COURT: Okay. Let me finish what I'm doing. Okay?
11 So would you all think about -- talk to them about what
12 it means to do a release and which doctors you need to get
13 releases from, or else you can put that in your discovery
14 request.
15 How long do you think it will take you to get some of
16 this information so that we can do something with this case?
17 MR. WHITE: Can we have two weeks from today for the
18 defendants to get together and agree on one set of discovery,
19 your Honor? And then --
20 THE COURT: Sure.
21 MR. WHITE: And then the discovery would go out and
22 then 30 days and then another whatever the Court would think
23 would be appropriate in addition.
24 THE COURT: Okay. Here's what I'm going to do.
25 MR. COFFIN: It will take some time to get the medical
26 records, your Honor.
27 THE COURT: That's what I think.
28 Discovery stay is lifted for defense to send out a
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 44
1 joint set of discovery. To be sent by -- I will make it
2 November 9th, with response date 30 days. We will start with
3 that.
4 Now, do the plaintiffs intend to send out any discovery
5 at this time? Is there discovery that you all need before I
6 can send you to meet with an evaluator on this case?
7 MR. MARTIN: Yes.
8 THE COURT: What do you need?
9 MR. MARTIN: Who is who and how they all tie together
10 and -- for example, when I see this William F. White, Inc.
11 next to Downey Studios LLC, I would like a discovery on who is
12 who, who owns the property now and how everyone is all tied
13 together.
14 THE COURT: Plaintiff may send.
15 MR. SERRAO: And I would also like the Ezralo Company
16 to supply us with their reasons why they didn't buy the
17 property if they have some because they did an independent
18 study of the property.
19 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: They're asking --
20 THE COURT: Wait a minute. I don't know what this
21 company is you are all talking about.
22 Counsel for Ezralo, are you a defendant in this lawsuit
23 now?
24 MR. MILLSAP: Yes, your Honor. We filed an answer to
25 the complaint.
26 THE COURT: Okay. So are you another studio operating
27 this property?
28 MR. MILLSAP: No, your Honor. Our client entered into
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 45
1 an exclusive negotiating agreement with the City of Downey
2 pertaining to the property. They never purchased the
3 property. They never did any construction there. They never
4 possessed property in any sense.
5 We, therefore, requested a dismissal. And I have sent
6 an affidavit to that effect to Mr. Martin.
7 THE COURT: Mr. Martin says he is going to dismiss you.
8 MR. MARTIN: Well, I was until I went online last night
9 and I looked up Bascom Group, and it states that Brian Ezralo,
10 president of Ezralo Company out of Calabasas, is redeveloping
11 the former NASA property in Downey.
12 THE COURT: But did he do it when you were on the
13 property?
14 MR. MARTIN: It doesn't have a date. It just says he
15 is redeveloping the former NASA property in Downey.
16 MR. MILLSAP: What is the date of the article?
17 MR. MARTIN: I just pulled this out last night under
18 the Bascom Group, Commercial Real Estate, which professionals
19 will --
20 THE COURT: He wants to know the date of the article.
21 MR. WIRICK: January of 2000.
22 THE COURT: January of 2000.
23 MR. MILLSAP: There was no redevelopment, your Honor.
24 All that Ezralo Company did was prepare some studies
25 and analysis of proposed developments. All of that needed to
26 be approved and accepted by the City and all of those issues
27 are matters of public record.
28 THE COURT: Okay. So we can't fight the facts out now.
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 46
1 I can't do that.
2 MR. MILLSAP: There was no possession of the control of
3 the property. It's quite that simple. There is no title. We
4 submitted an affidavit to that effect.
5 THE COURT: Okay.
6 MR. MILLSAP: Thank you.
7 THE COURT: Okay. So the stay is lifted for the
8 defense and the plaintiff to send a joint set of discovery.
9 Send out one set of discovery. One of you send out
10 discovery. If you want to send it to them, send it to them.
11 The stay is also lifted for the filing of any summary
12 judgments, summary judgments or SAI's. Okay? There you go.
13 So if you have affidavits, feel free to file your
14 motion, counsel in the back.
15 Okay. So now by the end of the year hopefully -- do
16 you think by the end of the year you can get the medical
17 records? Only if they sign releases.
18 MR. COFFIN: Only if they sign releases.
19 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, perhaps the Court could inquire
20 if there is any opposition to signing the releases. It just
21 makes our job harder if there is.
22 THE COURT: I understand that. I understand.
23 Do you understand what I'm talking about with regard to
24 medical releases? You did that for Worker's Comp. The
25 question is whether you can do it here.
26 Mr. Martin, you can't flail your arms around when I'm
27 talking. I'm talking to him right this second.
28 My question is whether you're willing to sign the
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 47
1 medical releases for this case also.
2 Again, I don't know which doctors. It would be all
3 doctors that treated you for anything that you're claiming in
4 this lawsuit.
5 MR. SERRAO: If it's okay with the Court, I would not
6 like to say yes until after I speak with this lawyer tomorrow.
7 I have a meeting with a lawyer, and I would like to do that.
8 THE COURT: How about this. How about if the
9 plaintiffs advise defense by next Tuesday, by the 30th, if
10 they will sign releases.
11 Now, what I want to do in regard to that is which
12 defense counsel should they advise, and will that counsel
13 please send a draft of the release to the plaintiffs today so
14 they can see what we're talking about?
15 So who is willing to do that?
16 MR. WHITE: They can advise me, your Honor, David
17 White.
18 THE COURT: So advise Mr. White. Mr. White will handle
19 this.
20 You will send out to these six today a draft release so
21 that you can show it -- so they have a copy of that draft
22 release and that they should advise you by next Tuesday
23 whether they are going to sign releases. It just takes them
24 longer if you don't sign releases.
25 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: We can do that over the phone?
26 THE COURT: Absolutely. You can't sign the release
27 over the phone, but, sure, you can call him.
28 That's only to the six.
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 48
1 MR. MILLSAP: Yes, your Honor.
2 If Ezralo is not dismissed from the case, we would also
3 like permission to file intention interrogatories.
4 THE COURT: I'm having you just do one set, if you can
5 do one set.
6 MR. MILLSAP: I think the issues may be very different
7 with respect to Ezralo since the other defendants had some
8 direct connection to the property.
9 THE COURT: Okay. Work it out with them. Just add
10 yours onto their set.
11 MR. MILLSAP: Thank you, your Honor.
12 THE COURT: I'm just trying to make it so we don't have
13 six sets of stuff going back and forth and all of that. Just
14 give them your questions and put it at the end of it.
15 Thanks.
16 MR. H. BRUCE NORRBOM: Your Honor, Bruce Norrbom, pro
17 per.
18 I'm considering dismissing them.
19 THE COURT: Well, that's fine. If you want to do it,
20 talk to counsel after, and maybe he will even prepare the
21 paperwork. I'm sure he will be happy to prepare the paperwork
22 for you.
23 MR. MILLSAP: By the way, I have dismissals handy.
24 THE COURT: He has dismissals.
25 MR. MARTIN: For discovery reports, as far as the
26 environmental impact report and reports on the said property,
27 can we get all of those from whoever did the reports?
28 THE COURT: Well --
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 49
1 MR. COFFIN: Your Honor, there is a long history of
2 investigation primarily done by the United States at this
3 property. It is a huge job to try to pull all of that
4 material together.
5 THE COURT: I would really rather that you do the
6 other, get the ownership and this and that. I can send you to
7 an evaluator earlier.
8 If some report's showing -- is there one report that
9 shows what was on this property originally?
10 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, there is probably warehouses
11 filled with reports. We're talking about a property that was
12 used from 1929 until about 2000 for aviation manufacturing and
13 then for NASA's purposes.
14 One of the reasons in support of Mr. Coffin's motion
15 for Boeing is that we're going to be at severe disadvantage if
16 we have to go to the United States as a non-party and try to
17 get all of that information.
18 THE COURT: Well --
19 MR. WHITE: Which I know is beyond the scope, but I
20 just point that out.
21 THE COURT: I think we can go on the assumption -- I'm
22 going on the assumption here that there are a lot of
23 chemicals. This is just an assumption. There are a lot of
24 chemicals thrown into the ground through the manufacturing
25 process.
26 So on that assumption, I want you all to go sit down
27 with an evaluator. Okay? So right now I'm not saying you're
28 not going to get that down the line, but I don't think you
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 50
1 need that to go off and have somebody talk to everyone.
2 MR. MARTIN: Correct.
3 THE COURT: So right now we're staging this.
4 MR. MARTIN: In respect to being at a disadvantage for
5 IRG, I see here the founder president of IRG, Stewart, used to
6 work for the General Services Administration for the United
7 States Government.
8 So I don't know that it would be a disadvantage. You
9 have somebody there that used to work for them.
10 MR. WHITE: We're talking about the United States
11 Government, your Honor. It doesn't really matter.
12 THE COURT: It just doesn't work that way.
13 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, can I raise one other
14 housekeeping detail?
15 THE COURT: Yes.
16 MR. WHITE: I think the more we get out, the less
17 confusion we have later.
18 Does the Court need to take a break?
19 THE COURT: How long do you think we will go?
20 MR. WHITE: I just have one small point.
21 THE COURT: One small point; otherwise, David will need
22 a break.
23 MR. WHITE: Just so there is no surprise when the
24 medical releases go out, your Honor, it is the IRG defendant's
25 position that we are entitled to all their medical, all their
26 psychiatric information wherever it comes from, from whenever.
27 THE COURT: I understand. But if I said "everything,"
28 I misspoke. I said everything that treated for it, but I'm
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 51
1 also assuming anything else that related to it. I understand.
2 MR. WHITE: So that it's not a shock when they see
3 those concepts on the paper.
4 THE COURT: What they are saying is they have a right
5 to see whether -- like, for example, if you claim you have
6 sinus problems now in 2007, they have a right to see your
7 allergist or your internist records from 1980 because you may
8 have complained about the same problems then.
9 So that is what he is talking about. That is why they
10 get to see.
11 But if there are records of doctors that do not pertain
12 to the illnesses, what I meant to say, you can object to those
13 specific doctors.
14 So, for example, if you saw an orthopedist in 1970, you
15 may have a right to object, and you should talk to counsel.
16 Yes.
17 MR. MARTIN: You have answered it.
18 THE COURT: Okay. Yes.
19 But things such as your internist, your primary care
20 doctor, your allergist, all of those kinds of things, probably
21 are going to go way back because you may have had asthma as a
22 child. I don't know.
23 MR. WHITE: And if somebody is claiming depression or
24 any other mental effects, we have a right to go into all the
25 psychological and psychiatric records.
26 THE COURT: That's a broad statement that I am not
27 going to make a ruling on at this moment.
28 MR. MARTIN: We can object to anything that they want?
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 52
1 THE COURT: You can object to anything. That is the
2 type of question there is a balancing and I have to wait on
3 it.
4 MR. HILL: Jeffrey Hill.
5 I'm still seeing a toxicologist, so my records would be
6 still ongoing.
7 THE COURT: I understand. That's fine. That's
8 absolutely fine. That's fine. They know how to do that.
9 They will get records as of a certain date, and down the line
10 if there is more, there's more.
11 At some point this thing proceeds. This doctor's
12 deposition is going to be taken, and they are going to be
13 really current on everything at that point.
14 I'm trying to get the minimum amount of discovery now
15 so that then we can do something about this case.
16 All right. So anything else? Or else I'm going to
17 give status conference.
18 What do you think? The end of January you ought to
19 have enough so we can talk about going somewhere.
20 MR. MARTIN: Is that a status conference
21 post-mediation?
22 THE COURT: No. No. The mediation won't be done by
23 then. No way. No way. They won't have your medical records.
24 If we're lucky, they will have your medical records then.
25 Okay. So the end of -- yes, sir, you have a question
26 now?
27 MR. SERRAO: Yes. On the question of ex-lawyer Mark
28 Appalian(ph) who is not here, I believe, is he still part of
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 53
1 the case as far as a settlement goes?
2 THE COURT: No. I didn't check. Did he not file all
3 of his --
4 MR. COFFIN: He did, your Honor.
5 THE COURT: I think he went over that, and so I told
6 him he didn't have to come. He is not involved in the case.
7 He is not involved in your settlement.
8 Having said that, that doesn't mean that he is not
9 going to claim, if you get some money, that he is entitled to
10 some.
11 I am not making any ruling on that. I have no idea
12 what agreements you signed with him, and I am not involved in
13 that.
14 MR. SERRAO: Okay.
15 THE COURT: You are welcome at any time you want to
16 ask these gentlemen and female counsel on the phone -- I
17 didn't mean to exclude you. Actually, I dismissed her so she
18 probably hung up on the phone --
19 MS. WOFFORD: I'm still here.
20 MR. SERRAO: To discuss what?
21 THE COURT: Settle with them. You're welcome to
22 discuss it with any of these individuals at any time. Now
23 that you are representing yourself, at any time you can do
24 that.
25 MR. SERRAO: Now, if I do retain a lawyer for us as a
26 group tomorrow, he can be at the mediation with us?
27 THE COURT: Absolutely.
28 No. No. If you retain a lawyer, that lawyer does
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 54
1 everything. That lawyer ought to immediately pick up the
2 phone and call one of these individuals and get on the loop of
3 this, what's going on here.
4 MR. SERRAO: That is the plan. Yes.
5 THE COURT: Absolutely.
6 Okay. So how about coming back January 22nd? How is
7 that date?
8 MR. WHITE: Very good.
9 THE COURT: At nine o'clock, January 22nd.
10 MR. WHITE: 2008.
11 THE COURT: '08.
12 MR. COFFIN: Your Honor, might I ask for a favor, which
13 is if it's possible to set it later in the day, I can come
14 down from San Francisco.
15 THE COURT: Okay. Just tell me any time. I'm happy to
16 do that for people. I don't see any reason why you have to
17 take those awful flights. Just let me know.
18 Do you like 11:00? Do you like 1:45.
19 MR. COFFIN: 11:00 is fine.
20 THE COURT: 11 o'clock. Just remind me when you come.
21 MR. COFFIN: Thank you.
22 THE COURT: It must have been something flying in today
23 over it all.
24 MR. COFFIN: I actually came in last night at nine
25 o'clock, and you can see the fires everywhere.
26 THE COURT: It's just everywhere.
27 Counsel on the phone, which area are you from?
28 MS. WOFFORD: Carlsbad. We're just waiting for
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 55
1 evacuation, unfortunately.
2 THE COURT: So it's not getter any better.
3 MS. WOFFORD: It's getting worse. They just finished
4 evacuating all of Del Mar.
5 THE COURT: It is making it over towards the other side
6 of the 5 freeway?
7 MS. WOFFORD: We are on the east side. They have
8 actually cleared all of the west side of the 5 down by the
9 water, which is interesting.
10 THE COURT: I'm sorry we're keeping you on the phone
11 here. I'm sure you have other things you want to do.
12 MS. WOFFORD: I would confess I have been packing while
13 we have been talking.
14 THE COURT: I understand. So I'm going to have Downey
15 then give notice since you're doing the other thing.
16 MR. WHITE: All right.
17 THE COURT: Okay. Anything, anybody else? Or else
18 we're settled down for the day.
19 MR. MARTIN: I have a question.
20 THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Martin.
21 MR. MARTIN: On the fee waiver that I have in part, I
22 was wanting to add copies to that.
23 THE COURT: Copies?
24 MR. MARTIN: Papers copied if I ever need anything
25 copied.
26 THE COURT: We don't copy papers.
27 MR. MARTIN: On the third floor.
28 THE COURT: You have to request a -- you have to send
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 56
1 me a fee request.
2 MR. MARTIN: I have one.
3 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
4 MR. WHITE: One more thing.
5 THE COURT: I have overruled the other demurrers.
6 MR. SERRAO: We released Entertainment Partners. Now,
7 if we release anybody else, is it possible -- I mean, do they
8 still have a chance to sue us for expenses?
9 THE COURT: I think they would probably, if you asked
10 them, release you without -- with a waiver of costs.
11 MR. SERRAO: Okay.
12 MS. WOFFORD: I will represent that the dismissal today
13 is with a waiver of costs.
14 MR. SERRAO: Beautiful.
15 THE COURT: That means they will not ask you for costs.
16 I assume you can talk to the gentleman in the back of
17 the room in the hall about that same manner.
18 Anything else?
19 I will see all in January.
20 MR. WHITE: Thank you, your Honor.
21 (End of proceedings.)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3 DEPARTMENT 308 HON. EMILIE H. ELIAS, JUDGE
4
5 BARRY BERNSON, et al., ) ) 6 Plaintiffs, ) ) SUPERIOR COURT 7 vs. ) CASE NO. VC 046 716 ) 8 CITY OF DOWNEY, et al., ) ) 9 Defendants. ) ___________________________________) 10
11
12
13 I, DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER OF THE
14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF
15 LOS ANGELES, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES, 1
16 THROUGH 57, INCLUSIVE, COMPRISE A TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT
17 OF THE PROCEEDINGS TAKEN IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER REPORTED
18 BY ME ON October 23, 2007.
19 DATED October 24, 2007.
20
21
22
23 _______________________________________
24 DAVID A. SALYER, CSR No. 4410, RMR, CRR Official Court Reporter 25
26
27
28
DAVID SALYER, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
KAISERPAPERS.INFO