Real-Time Court Decisions and Other Developments in Asbestos Litigation.
In this NYCAL case, a June 23, 2014 order denied defendant Cleaver-Brooks’ motion to vacate a November 9, 2013 order of the Special Master directing the production of “all its commercial files, all other relevant documents and records, and its index card database.” The order also denied Cleaver-Brook’s application for a confidentiality order and cost …
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. …
The plaintiff and his wife commenced this action in Louisiana state court, alleging that his mesothelioma was caused by his exposure to several asbestos-containing products, including products supplied by various Louisiana companies. At the time of commencement, diversity jurisdiction did not exist and the action was therefore not removable to federal court. Several defendants settled, …
The decedent died of mesothelioma and the plaintiff, his widow, proceeded on the claims that had been filed prior to his death; the plaintiff did not substitute herself as special administrator of his estate. Defendant Owens-Illinois filed a notice of death pursuant to federal rules, then filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule …
In 2006, the plaintiff successfully sued two defendants for injuries related to the plaintiff’s workplace asbestos exposure. This judgment was vacated and remanded to federal district court, where it remained pending. The plaintiff passed away in 2012; two years later, his widow filed a wrongful death claim against new defendants. The defendants moved for summary …
The court excluded the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Eugene Mark, on the basis of Daubert. After this order, defendant Ford filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss, and defendant Honeywell filed a motion to reconsider the court’s summary judgment order; both were made pursuant to the court’s order excluding …
The plaintiff was employed by Ferro Engineering for four years, and alleged that during this time he was exposed to products containing asbestos. Forty-one years after this employment he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, and sued Ferro under several theories including negligence. Ferro filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the …
Six cases were decided in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; all started in the Northern District of Ohio, and were transferred to the MDL 875 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In all six cases, the plaintiffs brought claims against various shipowners represented by Thompson Hine LLP, and all …
The plaintiff in this case was diagnosed with mesothelioma and filed claims for negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium against, among others, Union Carbide and Elementis Chemicals, as successor-in-interest of Harrison & Crosfield, Pacific, Inc., and certain related entities. The plaintiff submitted three theories of liability: strict liability (design defect under the consumer expectations …
The plaintiff alleged that he developed renal cancer from asbestos exposure while working at the Philadelphia Navy yard, the New York Shipbuilding yard, and various automotive and electric shops in New Jersey. In July 2013, this case was removed to the federal court in Pennsylvania as part of MDL-875. Defendant Ford moved to exclude the …