In this federal court case, the court’s jurisdiction was based solely on the plaintiff’s assertion of maritime jurisdiction as set forth in in his fourth amended complaint. The plaintiff brought claims against 54 defendants that manufactured asbestos-containing products that the decedent, Christopher Curtis, was allegedly exposed to in three different situations: From 1955-58 while he served in the Navy, while employed as an electrician for 40 years, and while performing maintenance on his automobiles. The plaintiff settled against many of the 54 defendants, and other defendants were either dismissed or obtained summary judgment. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the remaining defendants were ABB, Inc., Eaton Corporation and Schneider Electric. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the court erred in granting summary judgment in that it found the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that Curtis was exposed to asbestos from the defendants’ products. The Ninth Circuit went on to state, “because of that error, the court also erred to the extent it relied on this finding to conclude that asbestos exposure from Defendants’ products was not a substantial factor in causing Curtis’s mesothelioma.” As the Ninth Circuit held: “It is not clear from the record whether the district court decided causation in Defendants’ favor on a ground other than product identification, such as insufficient medical evidence linking Curtis’ exposure to asbestos to his mesothelioma.” The case was remanded for further proceedings.
On remand, the court reviewed the parties’ responses to the court order requesting the submission of briefs regarding whether or not the plaintiff intended to pursue maritime claims against ABB, Eaton, and Schneider and what evidence supported such claims. The court also reviewed the previously submitted papers and again granted the remaining defendants summary judgment. As the court held: “The issue of Plaintiff’s failure to provide sufficient evidence that Defendants’ products were a substantial factor in causing decedent’s injury, separate and apart from the issue of product identification, was presented in Defendants’ Motions, and this Court has now more fully explained that this was and is an independent basis for granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on both the maritime and state law claims. Indeed, Plaintiff made no effort to differentiate between the substantial factor causation analysis that applies to the maritime claims and the substantial factor causation analysis that applies to the state law claims. There is no evidence that would support a conclusion that decedent’s brief exposure to asbestos contained in Defendants’ products while he served in the Navy, when compared to his 40-year civilian career, was a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma. Because Defendants cannot be liable on any of Plaintiff’s claims against them without evidence that exposure to asbestos from their products was a substantial factor in causing decedent’s mesothelioma, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s maritime claims and, additionally, on the state law claims. This is because Plaintiff did not submit any evidence, let alone sufficient medical evidence, to satisfy the substantial factor requirement on either type of claim, despite Defendants having moved for summary judgment on the substantial factor issue.”