Asbestos

Useful Rulings on Asbestos

Recent Rulings on Asbestos

KIMBERLY BROWN VS, FAIRFIELD WYNDOVER LIP., ET AL

If Defendants knew by virtue of what occurred in other apartments that there was likely mold and asbestos in Plaintiff 5 unit, this would bolster her claims and support a claim for punitive damages As another example, if Defendants delayed in addressing the mold/asbestos issue as to a number of other tenants, this would support Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages in that it would be some evidence that they did not just “drop the ball” this one time but instead acted intentionally, Therefore, the motions to

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

KRISTIE DOYLE, ET AL. V. IMERYS TALC AMERICA INC., ET AL.

Smith provides expert opinion testimony that states in relevant part: (1) it is well established by epidemiological studies that asbestos is the major cause of malignant mesothelioma; (2) no level of exposure to asbestos has been established to be associated with zero risk of mesothelioma; (3) there is no need to recreate a product-specific epidemiological study to determine whether individuals exposed to asbestos from that product were at risk of developing mesothelioma since it is the asbestos from the product

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

MARK ANTHONY RAMOS ET AL VS ANZO NOBEL COATINGS INC ET AL

Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 731, a plaintiff sued manufacturers of boilers that had been installed at his employment site for containing asbestos that caused his mesothelioma. (Id. at p. 733.) The plaintiff alleged the boilers contained asbestos insulation that was exposed whenever the manufacturers’ agents arrived to perform routine maintenance. (Id. at pp. 733–34.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

KRISTIE DOYLE, ET AL. V. IMERYS TALC AMERICA INC., ET AL.

Background This is an asbestos litigation case. Kristie Doyle, and her son, Ethan Doyle, by and through his guardian ad litem (collectively “Plaintiffs”), bring causes of action for product liability and wrongful death against Imerys Talc America, Inc. (“Imerys”), Cyprus Mines Corporation (“Cyprus”), and Johnson & Johnson/Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (“J&J”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2020

EVELYN CHANDLER, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST AND AS WRONGFUL DEATH HEIR OF GAIL CHANDLER VS. PNEUMO ABEX LLC

No appearance is required under the following conditions: Case Management Conference - Case Management Program continued to 04/23/2020 at 08:30 in this department. An Attorney Compliance Statement shall be filed not less than fifteen (15) days prior to hearing. New Case Management Statements shall be filed by all parties no later than 15 da...

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

MATTER OF CARRARI FAMILY TRUST

To the extent any true assertion of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product protection are made with respect to any document or documents which are responsive to the categories requested, Mr.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

(*delete this ¶) THE MOTION This motion for new trial is based solely on the alleged grounds that on October 18, 2019, nine days post-verdict in this case, the FDA reported finding asbestos in Johnson’s Baby Power and then advised consumers to stop using the product. Defendant recalled the specific batch of the product.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2020

STROBEL V COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO. ET AL.

However, Plaintiffs do not present substantial evidence that a JBP product contained asbestos during the time periods in which Plaintiff was exposed nor meaningfully link that JBP product purchased by or for Plaintiff to asbestos sourced from mines that may contain asbestos. Plaintiffs rely on the declaration of Dr. Cohen to which Defendants’ object on the basis of hearsay and foundation. A review of Dr.

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2019

CAMACHO VS. JLG INDUSTRIES, INC.

“The sophisticated user defense exempts manufacturers from their typical obligation to provide product users with warnings about the products' potential hazards. (In re Asbestos, supra, 543 F.Supp. at p. 1151.) The defense is considered an exception to the manufacturer's general duty to warn consumers, and therefore, in most jurisdictions, if successfully argued, acts as an affirmative defense to negate the manufacturer's duty to warn. (Ibid.)” Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 56, 65.

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2019

ALLEN G SHAW ET AL VS ASHLAND LLC ET AL

The Court of Appeal found that the plaintiff’s response did not “state specific facts showing that [the plaintiff] was actually exposed to asbestos-containing material from [the defendant’s] products.” (Ibid.) Here, Plaintiffs’ responses do refer to a specific Safety Kleen product.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

EMIGH V. GEWALT

Eldridge (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1204, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 545 for the proposition that orders disqualifying counsel are not always the product of motions by an attorney's present or former client. (See also Blue Water, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at pp. 485–486, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 641.) Shen does not contest Miller's standing to bring the underlying motion to disqualify counsel, therefore we will not address the issue further.” (Chih Teh Shen v. Miller (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 48, 56-57.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2019

MARTHA VITAL, ET AL. VS OAK HILLS IV CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

On August 24, 2018, Vital responded, stating her dissatisfaction with Super Builders’ work product. On August 28, 2018, the roof in Plaintiff’s unit began to leak again. Although Plaintiff contacted Oak Hills, they did nothing. On December 21, 2018, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2019

EPOCHAL ENTERPRISES INC VS LF ENCINITAS PROPERTIES LLC

The Tenant objects to this discovery on several grounds, including that it is overly broad, not germane to the issues presented in this lawsuit, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing, violates the Tenant's right of privacy in financial information, is unrelated to the Tenant's damages, and is subject to a host of other privileges (such as the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges).

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

EPOCHAL ENTERPRISES INC VS LF ENCINITAS PROPERTIES LLC

The Tenant objects to this discovery on several grounds, including that it is overly broad, not germane to the issues presented in this lawsuit, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing, violates the Tenant's right of privacy in financial information, is unrelated to the Tenant's damages, and is subject to a host of other privileges (such as the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges).

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

QIUHENG LIAO VS. XPO GF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

This standard was extended to the work product doctrine in Rico, supra. However, “ ‘[m]ere exposure to an adversary’s confidences is insufficient, standing alone, to warrant an attorney’s disqualification.’ ” (State Fund, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at 657, quoting In re Complex Asbestos Litigation (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 572, 589.) The means and sources of breaches are important considerations in a motion for disqualification. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2019

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALLEN G SHAW ET AL VS ASHLAND LLC ET AL

However, the Court notes that in Andrews, the primary focus of the factually-devoid nature of the plaintiff’s responses was that the responses were “devoid of material facts showing that Andrews had been exposed to a Foster Wheeler product.” (Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 106.) When the defendant in Andrews requested the identification of “each person having knowledge of facts and the facts known regarding each asbestos exposure,” the plaintiffs failed to provide any facts.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2019

COVEY V. RESPONSE 1 MEDICAL STAFFING, INC.

Superior Court (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 647, 658, 271 Cal.Rptr. 698 [attorney may be disqualified from representing a party where the attorney received work product of moving party from an expert previously designated as moving party's expert].)

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2019

ALLEN G SHAW ET AL VS ASHLAND LLC ET AL

John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1300 [evidence that the defendant warned its workers about the dangers of asbestos but did not disclose to customers supported imposition of punitive damages against corporate defendant].) Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Radiator’s motion to strike as to the punitive damages allegations.

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2019

ALEJANDRO DANIEL SANTIZO VS VISENTE SANDOVAL AGUALLO, ET AL.

In Modisette, the court explained that the plaintiff's harm was not closely tied to the defendant driver's and Apple's actions: “Apple’s design of the iPhone . . . simply made [the defendant driver's] use of the phone while driving possible, as does the creator of any product (such as a map, a radio, a hot cup of coffee, or makeup) that could foreseeably distract a driver using the product while driving. . . . Apple's design of the iPhone did not put the danger in play.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MICHAEL SIMEON SMITH VS AMERICAN IDOL PRODUCTIONS INC ET AL

In support of its initial burden, WLI provides undisputed evidence that WLO had various on-product labels and other literature that accompany the subject cotton oto-dam and cartridge silicone impression material. (Fact 6.) WLI also argues that it sold its product to a sophisticated purchaser that WLI knew was aware or should have been aware of the specific dangers to its product.

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2019

CARRERA V. BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

Sanchez states: “In my expert opinion, the talc from the source mines used to manufacture Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder was free of asbestos. Absent testing of an actual product, there is currently no scientific methodology and no available data for any expert to prove or otherwise conclude that any particular product manufactured with talc contained asbestos.” (Sanchez Decl., at ¶53.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 25, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

VIG FURNITURE INC VS LASKEY-WEIL III ET AL

Plaintiff argues that at most, the information subject to the subpoena is subject to qualified work product, not absolute attorney work product, and thus, information such as the identity and location of physical evidence or witnesses along with any photographs or factual observations or asbestos containing material of the Subject Property must be disclosed.

  • Hearing

    Mar 19, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GIBSON VS. ACE HARDWARE CORP

Ay has opined that there is a reasonable probability that the drywall mud purchased and used by Gibson several times contained asbestos. Thus, Canoga has failed to meet its initial burden of production and persuasion that Gibson cannot produce evidence of his exposure to a product containing asbestos.

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2019

ARAMBULA VS. IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Written discovery benefits the propounding party because it is a product of the responding party’s time and effort to gather information in written responses, that were prepared over time. A deposition serves the essential purpose of enabling litigants and attorneys to assess the witness’ credibility, disposition, and to receive the benefit of unrehearsed answers to on-the-spot questioning.

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2019

GIBSON VS. ACE HARDWARE CORP

Even if the burden had shifted, however, Gibson has demonstrated a material triable issue that Hamilton drywall mud contained asbestos, that Gibson was exposed to asbestos by virtue of his use of that product on numerous occasions, and that Sherwin-Williams failed to warn consumers and end users that this product contained asbestos. It is a reasonable inference that a product manufacturer has actual knowledge of the constituent ingredients of its products.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 164     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.