In this case, the plaintiff alleged exposure through his father’s work close from 1953 through the 1970s. The plaintiff’s father worked at the Exxon Baton Rouge facility. The plaintiff also claimed exposure to asbestos as an adult while working as a carpenter at various residential construction sites and as a contractor at Exxon between 1965 through 1978. Defendant Exxon removed the action to federal court based on diversity with the consent of defendants Georgia-Pacific, LLC and Union Carbide Corporation . The plaintiff subsequently moved to …
Continue ReadingCategory: Case Decisions
Case Remanded to State Court to Hear Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on Personal Jurisdiction as State Court Issues Predominate Case
In this case, the decedent Oscar Villanueva, is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos from various products while working at Glendale Auto Radio Stereo from 1969 to 1990. Defendant FCA US LLC removed the case to federal court since any judgment would have an impact on its bankruptcy estate. Defendant Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porsche moved to dismiss arguing improper service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff subsequently dismissed the claim against FCA and moved to remand for lack of subject matter …
Continue ReadingCalifornia Appellate Court Allows Expert Opinion Testimony on “Every Exposure” Theory
The plaintiff presented expert testimonial evidence at trial that her father’s exposure to asbestos from Bendix brake linings was a substantial factor in contributing to his risk of developing mesothelioma. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff; defendant Honeywell International appealed on two grounds: (1) the “every exposure” theory should have been excluded under California law, and (2) the trial court erred in refusing to give a supplemental jury instruction regarding factors relevant to the substantial factor determination. The court found no error.
For …
Continue ReadingSection 2 of the Indiana Product Liability Act Statute of Repose Found Unconstitutional
In this federal court case, three appeals regarding the constitutionality of the Indiana product liability act statute of repose were consolidated for review. Several defendants moved for summary judgment based on the statute of repose in each of the cases with various results. The plaintiffs now argue that section 2 of the statute draws a constitutional impermissible distinction between asbestos plaintiffs who have claims against defendants who both mined and sold raw asbestos and asbestos and those asbestos plaintiffs that have claims against defendants that …
Continue ReadingPlaintiff’s Motion to Remand Granted and Attorneys’ Fees Awarded to Plaintiff; Defendant’s Notice of Removal Both Substantively and Procedurally Improper
The plaintiff filed an action in California state court against various defendants after being diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. Defendant O’Reilly Auto Enterprises removed to federal court after it was the only remaining defendant on the basis of diversity. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand and for attorneys’ fees. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion.
O’Reilly’s notice of removal was both substantively and procedurally improper. A complaint that is not initially removable due to non-diversity may become removable where diversity arises due to a plaintiff’s …
Continue ReadingDistrict Court Relies on Plain Language of Forum-Defendant Rule in Denying Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Remand
The plaintiff filed an asbestos-related lawsuit in Louisiana state court. Defendant Honeywell filed a notice of removal on the basis of diversity, without knowing that its registered agent in Louisiana was personally served one day before filing the removal. At the time of removal, no other defendant had been served. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand, arguing that Honeywell could not remove because one of the defendants (Burmaster) was a resident of Louisiana. The plaintiff also argued Honeywell “jumped the gun” by removing before …
Continue ReadingInherent Difficulties with Discovery In Latent Disease Cases Key to Allowing Plaintiffs to Amend Pleadings After Scheduling Order Deadline
The decedent was a career aircraft mechanic at Belle Chasse Air Force Base, and died of mesothelioma. The decedent’s heirs sued nine defendants in state court for asbestos exposure; defendant Boeing Company removed to federal court. After the deadline to amend pleadings, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to continue the trial date so that they could add the manufacturers of additional aircrafts, and to establish a new scheduling order and trial date. The court declined to continue the trial date, but allowed the plaintiffs …
Continue ReadingCase Remanded to State Court Despite Defendant’s Claim Plaintiffs Acted in Bad Faith with Claims Against Non-Diverse Defendant
In this case, Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (ACL) removed the action to federal court on the ground of diversity. The plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that ACL removed the action past the one year deadline to do so. ACL responded that the missing of the deadline to remove is excused since the plaintiffs acted in bad faith by maintaining a claim against a non-diverse defendant, J.T. Thrope & Sons, Inc. (JTTS), to prevent removal. The plaintiffs responded that they were active in prosecuting those claims in …
Continue ReadingNYCAL Judge Denies Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Product Identification and Other Grounds
In a February 22, 2016 decision, the Honorable Peter H. Moulton, J.S.C. of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a case where the plaintiff-decedent was allegedly exposed to asbestos during a lengthy career as a longshoreman on at certain New York City piers. During the pertinent period, the moving defendant was alleged to be the manufacturer of two asbestos-containing products (i.e., a pelletized product and a phenolic molding compound). The plaintiff …
Continue ReadingExpert Opinion on Asbestos Content of Insulation — Based in Part on Non-Party Witness Declaration — Sufficient to Create Question of Fact to Overcome Summary Judgment
In this case, it was claimed that the decedent, Michael O’Leary, was exposed to asbestos while working as a rigger at the Tosco Refinery in the 1970s to late 1980s near employees from the defendant, Dillingham Construction N.A., Inc., who were sweeping up insulation off the floor in his vicinity. The trial court precluded the opinion that the insulation contained asbestos as being speculative from the plaintiff’s expert, Charles Ay, and granted summary judgment to Dillingham.
On appeal, the court found the expert’s opinion to …
Continue Reading