Category Archives: California

Summary Judgment Granted and Request for Continuance Denied Based Upon Lack of Evidence U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, April 16, 2018

CALIFORNIA — Defendant, Rohr, Inc., filed a motion for summary judgment based upon a lack of evidence demonstrating the plaintiff was exposed to a Rohr product. The plaintiffs opposed the motion, but failed to present any such evidence in support of their opposition. The plaintiffs also filed a motion to continue, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), for additional time to conduct discovery. To succeed on such a motion, the moving party must show: 1) an affidavit setting forth the specific facts to…

Continue Reading....

Boiler Manufacturer’s Summary Judgment Reversed; Question of Fact on Product ID and Denial of Bare Metal Defense U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, April 2, 2018

CALIFORNIA — In this federal court case, the plaintiffs commenced an action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging the plaintiff’s decedent, Robert Hilt, was exposed to asbestos from numerous products, including Foster Wheeler boilers, on Navy ships . Foster Wheeler moved for and was granted summary judgment based on the finding that the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Charles Ay’s, opinion was speculative.  Subsequently all other defendants either settled or were dismissed from the case. The plaintiff appealed the order granting Foster Wheeler summary judgment and…

Continue Reading....

Summary Judgment Affirmed Based on Lack of Admissible Evidence of Secondary Asbestos Exposure Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California, March 8, 2018

CALIFORNIA —Sandra Foglia and her children filed suit against Moore Dry Dock (MDD), alleging that the decedent, Ronald Foglia, was exposed to asbestos via his late father, Felix Foglia, and developed mesothelioma. The plaintiffs alleged that Felix was exposed to asbestos while working as an electrician at a shipyard operated by MDD. MDD moved for summary judgment, claiming it owed no duty of care to the decedent for secondary exposure and that the plaintiffs could not reasonably obtain evidence to show that the decedent was…

Continue Reading....

Summary Judgment Reversed Against Gasket Defendant Despite Contradictory Declaration Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, December 22, 2017

CALIFORNIA — The plaintiffs filed suit against dozens of defendants, including Familian Corporation, alleging that Mr. Turley developed an asbestos related disease for which defendants were liable. Specifically, Mr. Turley alleged that he was exposed to asbestos containing cement pipe, pipe collars, gaskets and elbows made by Familian while working at various Pacific Gas and Electric Company locations. Familian moved for summary judgment. The plaintiffs filed an opposition with a declaration from a witness, Paul Scott, who had not been deposed. The declaration implicated Familian…

Continue Reading....

California Jury Finds Against Asbestos/Talc Defendants for $22.17 Million Alameda County Superior Court, California December 12, 2017

CALIFORNIA — Earlier this week, an Alameda County, California jury awarded plaintiffs $22.17 million dollars, comprised of $17.6 million in compensatory damages and $4.6 million in punitive damages.  Defendants Imerys Talc America Inc. (40 percent) and Vanderbilt Minerals LLC (60 percent) were found liable.  Vanderbilt Minerals reportedly settled the case after the compensatory verdict.  The plaintiffs alleged that the 72-year-old decedent developed mesothelioma after working with paint made with talc that was contaminated with asbestos.  According to the plaintiffs’ closing arguments, the defendants had denied…

Continue Reading....

Johnson & Johnson Found Not Liable in California Talcum Trial Los Angeles County Superior Court, November 16, 2017

After almost three days of deliberation following a four week trial, a Los Angeles area jury reached a defense verdict in a mesothelioma case against Johnson & Johnson and its supplier Imerys Talc America, Inc. In closing arguments, the plaintiff urged the jury to consider evidence that allegedly documented Johnson & Johnson’s long awareness of asbestos contamination in its talc mines in attributing the plaintiff’s disease to the defendants. Defense arguments focused on a lack of asbestos markers in the plaintiff’s lungs, and pointed to…

Continue Reading....

Los Angeles Jury Deliberating in $24M Talcum Product Trial Los Angeles County Superior Court, November 13, 2017

CALIFORNIA — Closing arguments were conducted on Monday, November 13, 2017 in a trial against Johnson & Johnson and its supplier, Imerys Talc America Inc., alleging that asbestos in talcum powder caused the plaintiff’s mesothelioma. The plaintiff’s counsel argued that Johnson & Johnson and Imerys pushed to delay regulation of talc for years, and that the companies advocated for methods of testing their products for asbestos that could not detect the levels actually present. The plaintiff suffers from mesothelioma, and her life is predicted to…

Continue Reading....

Los Angeles Jury Concludes Mesothelioma Not Caused By Asbestos Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, October 27, 2017

CALIFORNIA — The estate of Velma Searcy (plaintiffs) filed suit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles for the personal injuries and subsequent death of Velma Searcy at age 51. The plaintiffs argued that Searcy’s mesothelioma diagnosis and death was caused from occupational exposure to asbestos through Searcy’s work as an electrician in the aerospace industry. The plaintiffs’ claims also included allegations of take-home asbestos exposure as a child watching her father perform brake changes on various vehicles. Most of the defendants either settled with…

Continue Reading....

Talc Manufacturer’s Summary Judgment Reversed; Question of Fact as to Asbestos content of Product Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Three, October 19, 2017

CALIFORNIA — Plaintiff Mary Lyons appealed summary judgment entered against her on her product liability claim against defendant Colgate-Palmolive, which was based on the allegation that she developed mesothelioma from the use of Colgate’s Cashmere Bouquet cosmetic talcum powder. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that she regularly used Cashmere Bouquet after bathing from the early 1950s through the early 197’s. Colgate manufactured Cashmere Bouquet from 1871 until 1985, and continued marketing the product until 1995, which coincided with the United States EPA’s report that…

Continue Reading....

In Talc Case, Gaps in Chain of Custody Lead to Partial Exclusion of Opinions of Plaintiff’s Geologist California Court of Appeal, August 25, 2017

Plaintiff Delgadina Alfaro alleged the development of mesothelioma due to asbestos contained in talcum powder she used as a child. The jury found for defendants Colgate-Palmolive Company, the manufacturer of Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder, and Imerys Talc America, Inc., the successor-in-interest to talc suppliers for Colgate, including Cyprus. The plaintiff appealed, and the court affirmed. The plaintiff claimed that her mother and grandmother used Cashmere Bouquet and that she used it as well. Her years of exposure were 1977-90. Colgate made Cashmere Bouquet from 1871-1985,…

Continue Reading....