Asbestos

Useful Rulings on Asbestos

Recent Rulings on Asbestos

BEATRIZ VALDEZ ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 200

As to a related health issue, asbestos: “Plaintiffs cannot be expected to prove the scientifically unknown details of carcinogenesis, or trace the unknowable path of a given asbestos fiber […] plaintiffs may prove causation in asbestos-related cancer cases by demonstrating that the plaintiff's exposure to defendant's asbestos-containing product in reasonable medical probability was a substantial factor in contributing to the aggregate dose of asbestos the plaintiff or decedent inhaled or ingested, and hence

  • Hearing

AMENEH MOUSAVI VS FUTURE IRRIGATION INC

Grace (9th Cir. 2007) 504 F.3d 745, 765 [holding that “the fact that a study is associational—rather than an epidemiological study intended to show causation—does not bar it from being used to inform an expert's opinion about the dangers of asbestos releases”].) More importantly, Board’s findings do not equate correlation with causation. Board does not find age or level of education causes a person to buy or not buy a GM vehicle.

  • Hearing

NHIEU V. CENTRAL HEALTH PLAN OF CALIFORNIA, INC.

The examples of service providers generally involved an entity installing or replacing one part in an already existing product versus creating a completely new product from instructions and parts supplied by another party. Petitpas, supra [replacement of asbestos based products in vehicle a service]; Monte Vista Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1681 [installing a soap dish in a bathroom a service]; Endicott v.

  • Hearing

PAULA GIRARD VS BROAN-NUTONE LLC

Asbestos Corp. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.) Both actions share a common core of facts arising from the fire. Upon payment of the claim, Girard assigned all rights to the State Farm insurance parties. Girard also seeks relief for the uninsured portion of the property damage claim. The motion is granted. Trial of March 15, 2021 to stand. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KRIESEL VS. HOLLAND

Cobra Solutions, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 468, 474-475 (motion to restrict access to disqualified counsel's work product)—delay in moving to restrict access unreasonable, and prejudice from delay extreme, resulting in waiver of right to restrict access to disqualified counsel's work product].

  • Hearing

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

Plough, Inc. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 539, 555, in which the court held that a failure to warn claim could not be maintained based on a product’s English-language labeling when the Spanish-speaking woman who administered the product “neither read nor obtained translation of the product labeling,” leading the court to conclude that there was “no conceivable causal connection between the representations or omissions that accompanied the product and plaintiff's injury.” (Id. at p. 555.)

  • Hearing

BEATRIZ VALDEZ ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 200

As to a related health issue, asbestos: “Plaintiffs cannot be expected to prove the scientifically unknown details of carcinogenesis, or trace the unknowable path of a given asbestos fiber […] plaintiffs may prove causation in asbestos-related cancer cases by demonstrating that the plaintiff's exposure to defendant's asbestos-containing product in reasonable medical probability was a substantial factor in contributing to the aggregate dose of asbestos the plaintiff or decedent inhaled or ingested, and hence

  • Hearing

LAZAR HAYWARD , ET AL. VS JAMES DUNN, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges Dunn Defendants hired a plumber to conduct repairs on the property, but the plumber failed to test for asbestos on the property even though the Dunn Defendants were aware that the property contained asbestos. Moreover, neither the Dunn Defendants nor Defendants Michelle Tepper and Wish Properties, Inc. dba Wish Sotheby’s International Realty (Broker Defendants) disclosed to Plaintiffs that the property contained asbestos although they had knowledge of the asbestos on the property.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

Absent this or similar evidence supporting an inference of probability that the replacement brake linings came from one of the Defendants, Johnson’s evidence simply establishes the possibility that Father was exposed to asbestos from a Defendant’s product. That is insufficient to defeat summary judgment. (Id. at pp. 237–38.

  • Hearing

BEATRIZ VALDEZ ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 200

As to a related health issue, asbestos: “Plaintiffs cannot be expected to prove the scientifically unknown details of carcinogenesis, or trace the unknowable path of a given asbestos fiber […] plaintiffs may prove causation in asbestos-related cancer cases by demonstrating that the plaintiff's exposure to defendant's asbestos-containing product in reasonable medical probability was a substantial factor in contributing to the aggregate dose of asbestos the plaintiff or decedent inhaled or ingested, and hence

  • Hearing

CHU V BROOKFIELD WOODBURY II, LLC

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s nuisance claim fails because California does not allow a plaintiff to recover for a defective product (the home) under a nuisance cause of action. In support of this argument, they cite City of San Diego v. U.S. Gypsum Co. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 575, 586. In that case, the court determined that the city could not bring a nuisance claim based on asbestos-containing building materials that had contaminated various city buildings.

  • Hearing

CARLOS X KELLY VS BARBARA J BAECHLER TRUSTEE OF THE BAECHLER FAMILY TRUST

All objections other than attorney-client privilege/work product are deemed waived. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a) Plaintiff is ordered to respond fully to the document demands (sets 1 and 2), in writing and under oath, by September 18, 2020. All objections other than attorney-client privilege/work product are waived. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a). Plaintiff must also produce all responsive documents by September 18, 2020. The motion for deemed admissions is denied without prejudice.

  • Hearing

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

Union-Carbide Corp. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 962, an asbestos case in which the court of appeal upheld a jury’s findings on causation with respect to some products but not others. The court concluded that substantial evidence did not support the conclusion that the appellant Union Carbide’s asbestos had been channeled to the plaintiff through the products of Kelly-Moore, because Kelly-Moore had multiple asbestos suppliers. (Id. at p. 970–71.)

  • Hearing

BEATRIZ VALDEZ ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 200

As to a related health issue, asbestos: “Plaintiffs cannot be expected to prove the scientifically unknown details of carcinogenesis, or trace the unknowable path of a given asbestos fiber […] plaintiffs may prove causation in asbestos-related cancer cases by demonstrating that the plaintiff's exposure to defendant's asbestos-containing product to a reasonable degree of medical probability was a substantial factor in contributing to the aggregate dose of asbestos the plaintiff or decedent inhaled or ingested

  • Hearing

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

As one court helpfully summarized, “[T]he Izell court found evidence of exposure [sufficient] where the defendant supplied all of the asbestos in a product the plaintiff encountered and insufficient where the defendant supplied a minority of the asbestos in the other products or the percentages of defendant’s asbestos in those products were unknown.” (Johnson, supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at p. 244.)

  • Hearing

LAS POSAS VALLEY WATER RIGHTS COALITION, ET AL. V. FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY, ET AL.

Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.) Coalition moves to consolidate the Adjudication Action and the Writ Action for all purposes. Fox Canyon partially opposes this motion. Apart from preserving its rights as they relate to its motion to transfer, discussed above, Fox Canyon argues that these actions should not be consolidated but only coordinated for the limited purpose of scheduling.

  • Hearing

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

This was an asbestos case in which the court of appeal upheld a jury’s findings on causation with respect to some products but not others. The court concluded that substantial evidence did not support the conclusion that the appellant Union Carbide’s asbestos had been channeled to the plaintiff through the products of Kelly-Moore, because Kelly-Moore had multiple asbestos suppliers. (Id. at p. 970–71.)

  • Hearing

AMEZOLA VS. MURAOKA

Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127.) The granting or denial of the motion to consolidate rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978–79.) Here, Case 1 and Case 2 arise out of the same multi-vehicle accident which occurred on 5/12/16, and seek to determine the liability of Moving Defendants.

  • Hearing

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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

(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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 165     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.