The plaintiffs, who had the same attorneys, commenced personal injuries actions in Nassau County Supreme Court, alleging personal injuries as a result of exposures to asbestos. In support of the motion, it was noted that each plaintiff was still alive and suffering from lung cancer, were exposed to the same or similar materials during a similar time frame, that common defendants existed, and that the non-parties would overlap. The defendants opposed on several grounds, including that the distinctions between the individual plaintiffs made joinder inappropriate …Continue Reading
In this NYCAL case, Justice Peter Moulton denied the defendants’ motion seeking to quash a subpoena served by Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. upon Mr. Marc Scarcella of Bates, White LLC, an economic consulting firm. Mr. Scarcella co-authored an article entitled, “The Consolidation Effect: New York City Asbestos Verdicts, Due Process and Judicial Economy.” In summary, the article analyzed verdicts in association with consolidated trials in NYCAL.
In denying the motion to quash, the court began its opinion by noting that the Defendants “concede[d] that [the …Continue Reading
In these federal court cases there were several motions brought forward, including a motion by the plaintiff to substitute the estate and file a third amended complaint following the death of the decedent, defendant 3M’s motion to preclude the plaintiff’s expert Dr. Arnold Brody, and defendant Weyerhaeuser’s Daubert motion regarding the plaintiff’s experts Frank M. Mark, III, and Drs. Henry A. Anderson and Jerrold L. Abraham.
Regarding the plaintiff’s motion for substitution and to amend the complaint, the court held: “The court will grant the …Continue Reading
The plaintiffs brought a motion to consolidate separate actions into three separate groups for joint trial. The court noted that as to the three groups, all of the plaintiffs are represented by the same law firm, are in the same phase of discovery, and the plaintiffs allege the same type of cancer. The court granted the motion, finding “…that the trials in each of the groups involve common questions of law and fact and that consolidation of these cases into the three groups will not …Continue Reading
In this NYCAL decision, the court assessed the consolidation of five remaining cases and ended up grouping two cases into Trial Group 1, two cases into Trial Group 2, and left one case to be tried on its own. The court’s reasoning for the decision is the following:
“Applying the Malcolm factors, I conclude the cases are properly consolidated into Trial Group 1 and Trial Group 2, with the Valensi case to be tried separately. Valensi is distinguishable from the other cases, as it is …Continue Reading
In this NYCAL case, the plaintiff brought a motion to consolidate nine asbestos actions for joint trial, claiming that there are common questions of law and fact. The court relied on the factors set forth in Malcolm v. National Gypsum Co., 995 F.2d 346, 350-351 (2d Cir. 1993): common worksite; similar occupation; similar time of exposure; type of disease; whether plaintiffs were living or deceased; status of discovery in each case; whether all plaintiffs were represented by the same counsel; and type of cancer …Continue Reading