In Copyright Since September 11,
2000This web site is in no manner affiliated with any Kaiser entity and the for profit Permanente
Link for Translation of the Kaiser Papers
PATHFINDER(search)
| ABOUT US |
CONTACT
| WHY
THE KAISERPAPERS
|
RESEARCH GUIDES BY SUBJECT | A READER'S GUIDE |
RESEARCH GUIDES BY SUBJECT | A READER'S GUIDE |
downey.kaiserpapers.info
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 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.