Category Archives: Pleadings Challenge

Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Over Defendant Leads to Remand and Dismissal Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, SIXTH DIVISION. May 18, 2018

ILLINOIS —  The plaintiff brought this action against General Electric (GE) arguing that he developed mesothelioma from exposure during his work at various locations for Republic Steel from 1961-1999. According to the plaintiff, the work took place in Illinois, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas. The plaintiff, a resident of Alabama, filed suit in Illinois. GE moved to dismiss the matter for lack of personal jurisdiction. Specifically, GE argued that the plaintiff’s complaint lacked facts establishing personal jurisdiction through Illinois’ long-arm statute. Moreover, GE took the position…

Continue Reading....

Community Exposure Claims by Former Employees Not Barred by Wisconsin Workers’ Compensation Act U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, April 17, 2018

WISCONSIN — Two deceased Weyerhauser employees brought claims against their former employer for common law negligence, negligent nuisance, and intentional nuisance. In an effort to avoid the exclusivity provisions of Wisconsin’s Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA), both plaintiffs alleged that the defendant Weyerhauser’s activities exposed them to asbestos in the community, not during the course of their employment with the defendant, causing their mesothelioma. Weyerhauser challenged the pleadings on several bases, and the court granted and denied their motion in part. The court denied Weyerhauser’s motion…

Continue Reading....

Plaintiff Survives Motion to Dismiss Upon Adding Additional Allegations in Amended Complaint U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, April 17, 2018

WISCONSIN — The plaintiff filed suit against Weyerhauser and its insurer for alleged emissions of asbestos into the Marshfield, Wisconsin community. Plaintiff Michael Kappel moved to add additional allegations to his complaint. Weyerhauser moved to dismiss. The plaintiffs were substituted upon Mr. Kappel’s passing. Weyerhauser sought dismissal on two separate grounds. First, the defendant argued the plaintiffs did not allege Mr. Kappel’s exposure from work at Weyerhauser in an effort to circumvent the exclusivity rules in the local worker’s compensation statute. The court disagreed as…

Continue Reading....

Personal Jurisdiction Motion Denied as Court Focuses on State-Related Contact U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, March 28, 2018

WASHINGTON — Decedent Donald Varney alleged that he developed mesothelioma from ambient exposure to defendants’ products while working in various positions at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, WA, and at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco, CA. Defendants Taco, Inc. and Aurora Pump Company filed identical Motions to Strike and Motions to Dismiss, which the court denied. The defendants’ Motion to Strike pre-judgment interest argued that Washington law made prejudgment interest unavailable for claims of unliquidated damages, and that the plaintiffs’ damages were…

Continue Reading....

California Government Claims Act Bars Plaintiffs’ Asbestos Action for Untimely Commencement California Court of Appeals, June 26, 2017

Plaintiffs Sandra Reyes Jauregui and Mario Reyes Jauregui filed a first amended complaint against the City of Pasadena arising from Sandra Jauregui’s mesothelioma. The City demurred to the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the Government Claims Act, requiring presentation of the claim to the City within six months of the date of Sandra’s mesothelioma diagnosis. The court agreed and issued a writ sustaining the demurrer. The plaintiffs originally filed a complaint against various defendants due to her father’s asbestos exposure while…

Continue Reading....

Lung Cancer Case Transferred After Defendants Successfully Argue Forum Non Conveniens on Appeal Appellate Court of Illinois, June 13, 2017

Plaintiffs Irvin and Marlene Rohl brought this action against several defendants including Caterpillar and Navistar. The plaintiffs argued that Mr. Rohl’s lung cancer was caused by exposure to asbestos from brakes, gaskets, clutches, engines, and heavy duty equipment made by Caterpillar and Navistar. At the trial level,  the defendants moved to transfer the case from Cook County to Winnebago County on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court denied the motion after a finding that the plaintiff had attended trade school in Cook County…

Continue Reading....

Automotive Parts Manufacturer Granted Dismissal due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, May 23, 2017

In another decision out of the Hodjera suit in the Western District of Washington, the motions to dismiss of Dana Companies, LLC and Dana Canada Corporation (the defendants), were granted based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Dana Companies is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio. Dana Canada is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in Ontario. The plaintiff alleged that he was exposed to asbestos in Toronto, Ontario, between 1986 and 1994. Neither company is registered to…

Continue Reading....

Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal in Federal Court Without Prejudice; Allows Plaintiffs to Refile in State Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, March 9, 2017

Plaintiffs Richard Zanowick and Joan Clark-Zanowick filed suit in state court in July 2014. The defendants timely removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds a month later. With the case now in federal court, Richard Zanowick passed away on October 12, 2014. The plaintiffs filed and electronically served a notice of his death on November 17, 2014. Pursuant to Rule 25(a)(1), the plaintiffs were required to file a motion to substitute a new party for Richard Zanowick within 90 days, or in this…

Continue Reading....

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Granted, but Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Complaint U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, January 3, 2017

The plaintiffs initially filed a “short form asbestos complaint” in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, that included general counts for negligence, strict liability, loss of consortium, conspiracy, and fraud. The plaintiffs also realleged and incorporated counts for wrongful death from the master complaint. The case was removed to federal court and the defendants filed the motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), among other arguments, with the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. A motion for judgment on…

Continue Reading....

Denial of Administrative Dismissal Turns on Definition of a “Smoker” Under Ohio State Code Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, November 17, 2016

Plaintiff Bobby Turner and his wife commenced an action in April 2013 alleging asbestos exposure caused his lung cancer. The plaintiff was a drywall finisher from 1962 to 1978. Defendant Union Carbide moved to administratively dismiss the claim in February 2014, claiming that the plaintiffs failed to submit prima facie evidence pursuant to R.C. 2307.92. (Under Ohio’s Revised Code General Provisions a plaintiff must meet minimum medical requirements for tort actions alleging an asbestos claim). In response, the plaintiffs submitted an affidavit saying that Mr.…

Continue Reading....