Category Archives: California

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Denied for Failure to Establish Spoliation of Evidence U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 24, 2016

The plaintiffs contended that their decedent was exposed to asbestos while working as a machinist at a shipyard owned by Electric Boat Corporation from 1962-65. At the close of discovery, a period in which several discovery motions were filed, the plaintiffs filed this motion for spoliation of evidence. The plaintiffs asserted that Electric Boat spoliated evidence in four areas including 1) historical asbestos insulation dust studies 2) material safety data sheets 3) certain deposition transcripts 4) certain deposition exhibits The court stated that spoliation is…

Continue Reading....

Sanctions Granted Against Defendant for Suspension of Corporate Representative Deposition U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 24, 2016

The plaintiffs’ brought this action against Electric Boat and General Dynamics for their decedent’s alleged development of mesothelioma as a result of his work as a machinist at the defendants’ shipyards. The plaintiffs sought depositions of the corporate representatives of both Electric Boat and General Dynamics since Electric Boat operated as a division of General Dynamics during the alleged exposure period. The plaintiffs noticed the deposition of General Dynamics’ corporate representative. General Dynamics objected to the notice and a hearing was promptly held. The court…

Continue Reading....

Defendants Petition California Supreme Court to Review Duty of Care Standard Regarding Take-Home Exposures Supreme Court of California

In the consolidated matters of Kesner and Havner, the defendants petitioned the California Supreme Court to find there is no duty on employers to protect against take-home exposures experienced by those who are neither employees nor visitors to the employer’s premises; including that of an employee’s spouse or family member. In the Havner matter, the plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against defendant BNSF Railway Company, alleging claims for wrongful death based on theories of negligence and premises liability due to the plaintiff’s take-home…

Continue Reading....

California High Court Declines to Review Appellate Reversal of Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment California Supreme Court, August 25, 2016

On August 25, 2016, the California Supreme Court, without a written opinion, declined to hear a petition to review an appellate panel’s decision to overturn a trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Hennessy Industries Inc. In this case, the plaintiff claimed that the decedent, Frank Rondon, worked as a mechanic using defendant Hennessy’s (Ammco Tools) brake arcing machines designed to grind asbestos brake shoes. Hennessy moved for summary judgment arguing that the brake grinders did not contain asbestos and plaintiffs could not establish that…

Continue Reading....

Remand Granted Based on Finding that Plaintiffs Acted in Good Faith Naming Defendant With State Contact U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, August 22, 2016

The plaintiffs sued multiple defendants including several “citizens” of California. Four days before trial defendant John Crane Inc. removed the case to federal court on diversity. The plaintiff then moved to remand. The court began its analysis by stating the legal standard for removal which permits removal when the federal court could have “exercised original jurisdiction” in the case. Additionally, the burden falls upon the removing defendant. A case may be removed under diversity unless one of the parties is a properly joined and served…

Continue Reading....

Exclusion of Belated Theory of Exposure Upheld on Appeal Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four, August 18, 2016

The plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including “asbestos” and “premises” defendants, asserting claims of negligence, strict liability and premises liability based on his alleged asbestos exposure in the City of Coalinga (where he resided from 1959 to 1972) and during his 30-year career as a pipe inspector. Defendant PAC Operating Limited Partnership was sued as a premises defendant. Its predecessor, Southern Pacific Land Company (SPLC), owned 557 acres of land in the Diablo Mountain Range, located 17 miles outside of Coalinga. In 1961, SPLC leased the…

Continue Reading....

Motion for Reconsideration of Summary Judgment of Defendants Electric Boat and General Dynamics Denied for Failure to Establish Material Difference in Fact or Law U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, August 1, 2016

The plaintiffs’ filed suit in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, alleging her decedent developed mesothelioma as a result of occupational exposure to asbestos while he worked as a machinist on various U.S. Navy ships manufactured by the defendants. The case was removed to federal court and Electric Boat and General Dynamics moved for summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs’ claims. The court denied the motions. The defendants’ included in their motions the argument that strict liability claims could not be…

Continue Reading....

Appellate Court Allows Industrial Hygienist’s Reliance on Hearsay Evidence in Overturning Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant Lumber Company Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division One, July 27, 2016

The plaintiff, Jerry Charlifue, sued Goodman Lumber Company after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He worked as a taper and painter for U.S. Taping Company between 1972 and 1978. His duties involved applying joint compound and smoothing out walls and ceilings where drywall had been hung. The plaintiff worked with dry joint compound for the first three to four years of the job, which produced respirable dust. Goodman moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff could not prove that he was exposed…

Continue Reading....

Court Issues Significant Verdict Reduction Based in Part on Jury Error of Finding Intentional Misrepresentation and Fraudulent Concealment Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, July 18, 2016

In a case previously reported on in ACT, a California jury found for the plaintiffs, Louis Tyler and Elizabeth Tyler and against defendant American Optical Corporation (AOC), the lone defendant remaining at trial, with an award of $22.8 million. This award consisted of $1.8 million in economic damages (medical expenses, lost income, household services, etc.) and $21 million in non-economic damages. The jury also found that AOC acted with malice, oppression and fraud, and awarded $10 million in punitive damages. The overall verdict totaled…

Continue Reading....

Summary Judgment Granted to Cleaver Brooks Because Vague Witness Testimony Not Enough to Establish Exposure U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, May 24, 2016

The decedent in this case, Michael Walashek, alleged exposure to asbestos from various products, including Cleaver-Brooks boilers, during the course of his work for various entities between 1967 and 1986. The exposure allegedly caused him to “suffer severe and permanent injury and ultimately death.” The plaintiff, Gail Walashek, subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. and other entities alleging claims of negligence and strict liability in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Following discovery, the defendant moved for summary…

Continue Reading....