Courtroom, Gavel And Law Books

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Denied; Court Finds Defendants’ Removal Timely

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division

This action was filed in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama, on June 23, 2022. The complaint named numerous defendants, including Paramount Global (“Westinghouse”) and General Electric Company. Plaintiff Gloria Craig suffers from mesothelioma allegedly as a result of her take-home exposure to asbestos via her ex-husband. Specifically, plaintiff alleged Mr. Craig brought home asbestos on his clothes while he was working at Alabama Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Co. (“ADDSCO”) in …

Continue Reading
Mesothelioma

Court Grants Plaintiffs Opportunity to Identify Brake Brand before Ruling on Motion to Quash

Court: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

Plaintiffs Samson Bareh and Gen Bareh filed this matter, alleging Samson developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos. Defendant Aftermarket Auto Parts Alliance Inc. filed the within motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The plaintiff had made no specific allegations against Aftermarket, and the complaint alleged nothing about Aftermarket, except to name it as a defendant.

A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of …

Continue Reading
Courtroom, Gavel And Law Books

Delaware Court Applying Ohio law Upholds Duty to Warn on Brake Grinding Machine Defendant

Court: Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle

In this asbestos action, decedent Donald Jordonek used brake lathes and grinders manufactured by AMMCO while working at a tire center in Ohio from 1972 until 1999. The plaintiff sued defendant Hennessy as a predecessor-in-interest to AMMCO. Although this court is venued in Delaware, the court determined that Ohio substantive law applied to this matter. Hennessy filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it did not have a duty to warn the plaintiff as the AMMCO equipment …

Continue Reading
Mesothelioma

Maritime Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment under Government Contractor Defense Denied

Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California

This asbestos-related lawsuit alleges that the decedent, Roberto Elorreaga, developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos-containing products while working aboard the USS Rupertus (DD-851) from October 1959 to January 1960 as a machinist mate, and the USS Cowell (DD-547) from October 1960 until February 1963 as a fireman’s apprentice and then as an electrician’s mate.

Several defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Government Contractor Defense precluded the plaintiffs’ claims.  Plaintiffs opposed the motions arguing …

Continue Reading
Wooden judge gavel, close-up view.

Case Remanded to California State Court; Plaintiff Awarded Motion Costs and Fees

Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California

In this asbestos action, plaintiff Gary Haeck sued several defendants for causes of action in strict products liability, negligence, fraud, and loss of consortium, including five entities that are California citizens.

Haeck moved for an expedited trial, which the court granted for December 2022. Defendant 3M moved to quash, or sever, the trial date as to them. The court severed two defendants, including 3M, from the December 2022 trial date and set a trial …

Continue Reading
Mesothelioma

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Settlement Agreements Granted

Court: United States District Court for the District of Kansas

In this action, plaintiff Dennis Dickenson filed suit after being diagnosed with mesothelioma and subsequently settled with two companies. Defendant Henkel moved to compel any, and all, settlement agreements and communications relating to those settlements. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing he should not be required to turn over the settlement agreements and communications as such information is not discoverable.

Ultimately, the court granted a portion of Henkel’s motion seeking settlement agreements. Henkel argued the …

Continue Reading
Mesothelioma

Valve Defendants Obtain Summary Judgment Due to Lack of Causation Evidence

Court: United States District Court for the Central District of California

In this action, the plaintiffs alleged that the decedent, John Carpenter, contracted and died from mesothelioma due to exposure to asbestos, which occurred in part during his service in the Navy. Before the court are two motions: defendant Nibco Inc.’s motion for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication (the “Nibco Motion”); and defendant Asco Valve Inc.’s (“Asco”) motion for summary judgment (the “Asco Motion”).

Four of the decedent’s coworkers testified about the …

Continue Reading
person testifying

Valve Defendants Obtain Summary Judgment on Causation

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

In this asbestos action, decedent John Carpenter worked as a marine machinist at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard from 1973 until 1984, when he became a mechanical engineering technician. Four of his co-workers testified as to his activities while at the shipyard, as Carpenter passed before he could be deposed. Two valve defendants, Nibco and Asco, moved for summary judgment, which the plaintiffs opposed.

With regard to the exposure evidence in this case, two co-workers testified …

Continue Reading
Mesothelioma

Retail Distributer’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Product-Identification Grounds Denied

Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, November 9, 2022

In this asbestos matter, the plaintiffs alleged that the decedent, Gail Chandler, developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, Parts Warehouse, a retail distributer, sold asbestos-containing parts to the decedent and/or the decedent’s employer, and that these parts caused the decedent to be exposed to asbestos. The plaintiffs further argued that Parts Warehouse also had liability for parts obtained through its alternative entity; Lamus-Lundlee Co. Parts …

Continue Reading
Judge chamber with gavel

Brake Manufacturer’s Motion to Dismiss on Personal Jurisdiction Grounds Denied

Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, October 6, 2022

In this asbestos action, Plaintiff George Sweikart alleged that his mesothelioma resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products, including brakes and clutches from defendant Akebono Brake Industry Co., Ltd. (“Akebono”). Akebono, a Japanese company, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, alleging that no personal jurisdiction exists over it in California.  

A non-resident defendant is subject to a state’s general jurisdiction if its contacts “are so continuous and systematic, as to render …

Continue Reading