Exhibit,Appendix: CHARLES HUSBAND VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                oe WN KD A

‘Oo

10
i
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
2
23
24
25
26
27
28

John R. Brydon [Bar No. 83365}
George A. Otstott [Bar No. 184671]
Thomas J. Moses [Bar No. 116002]
BRYDON HUGO & PARKER

135 Main Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone (415) 808-0300
Facsimile (415) 808-0333

Email: service@bhplaw.com

Attorney for Defendant
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

MAR 02 2012

Clerk of the Court
BY: JUDITH NUNEZ
Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT - STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

IN RE: BRAYTON GROUP 581 AND 582
ROBERT A. LINDSEY, 5R.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP),

Defendants.

(ASBESTOS)
Case No: CGC-10-275492

COMPENDIUM OF OUT-OF-STATE
AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION OF
DEFENDANT UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFES’
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE
REMAINING ASBESTOSIS CASES IN
GROUPS 581 AND 582 FOR TRIAL
(Part 2 of 2)

[Filed Concurrently With Opposition;
Declaration of Thomas J. Moses]

Date:

Time:
Dept.:
Judge:

March 9, 2012

10:00 a.m.

608

Curtiss E.A. Karnow

JAMES NASH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B“P),

Defendants.

(ASBESTOS)
Case No. CGC-09-275414

-l-

COMPENDIUM OF OUT-OF-STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE
REMAINING ASBESTOSIS CASES IN GROUPS 581 AND 582 FOR TRIALEMILIO VALDIVIA,
Plaintiff,
vs.

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B#P),

(ASBESTOS)
Case No. CGC-09-275311

Defendants.
(ASBESTOS)
RONALD HEVENER, Case No. CGC-08-274851
Plaintiff,

vs.

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P),

Defendants.
(ASBESTOS
CHARLES HUSBAND, Case No. CGC-09-275098
Plaintiff,

vs.
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B“P),

Defendants.

-2-

COMPENDIUM OF OUT-OF-STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE
REMAINING ASBESTOSIS CASES IN GROUPS 581 AND 582 FOR TRIALWestlaw.

_ 203 BW.3dl 286

202 8.W.34 286

a
Jn ro Shel] 04] Co,
Tex.App.-deaumont,2006,

Court of Apponls of Texas,Boaumont,

Inte SHELL OTL CO., Shell Chemica! LP, United
States Stee] Corp,, Amerieon Chemistry Council,
Exxon Corp. ExxonMobil Cil Corp,, Movil Chem-
ieal Co,, Ino,, Ethyl Corporation and Union Carblds
Corporntion,

No, 09-06-198 CV.

Submitted on June 29, 2006,
Delivered Sept, 14, 2006.

Background: Former employers fled petition for

writ of mandamus compalling tclet court to vanate

its order to conpolidate occupational exposure claim
of former eraployes and bjs wife and olaim of per
sonal representative of estate of devensed former
omployes,

Wolding: The Court of Appeals held that consotid-
ation of was not wareuted,

Petitton conditionally printed.
‘Wost Headnotes
[1] Mandamus 250 =4(1)

250 Mandamus
2501 Nature and Grounds in General
250k4 Remody by Appeal or Writ of Error
250k4(1) k, in General, Most Cited Gases

Mandanius 250 €=228

250 Mandamus
2501 Subjects and Purposes of Relief
2501(A) Acts and Proceedings of Courts,
Judges, and Fidicial Officers
250K28 k. Mattore of Disoretion, Most
Cited Casas

An appellete court may issue a writ of mandamus

Page 2 of 8

Page 1

when the trial court has ebused ity discretion end
the relator tacks an adequato remedy on appeal.

[2] Mandamus 250 €928

250 Mandanus
25011 Subjeots and Purposes of Reliet’

250U(A) Acts ond Proceedings of Costs,

Judges, and Judiclal Offfeers
250K28 kk, Matters of Discretion, Most

Clted Cases :
A trial court has no discretion in determining. what
the Jaw js or applying the law to the facts; thus, a
cloar fatlure by the trial cowt ic analyze of apply
the law correctly will sonstttute an abuse of disore-
tion, and may reeutt in appellate reversal by: ex
truordinery writ,

[3] Mandamus 250 O=24(1)

250 Mandamus .
2501 Nature and Grounds {i Gsneral
250K4 Remedy by Appeal or Writ bf Exror
250}c4(1) k. In General, Most Cited Cases

With respect to whotlier an appellate romody is ad-
equate for purposes of determining whether manda
mus relief js warrabted, “adequate” has no compre-
honsive definition; it is simply a proxy for the care-
ful balance of jurlspradential considerattons thst
determine when sppellate coutts will use original
mandamus proceedings to review the sctions of
lower courts. .

[4] Mandarus 280 ©=>1

250 Mandamus
2501 Nature and Grounds in General

250k1 k, Nature aid Scope of Remady in
General. Most Cited Cases
Mandamus review of iriel courts! incidental inter
looutory rulings undoly interferes with trial court
proovedings, diverts appsllate courts! attentlon to
unknpoitant issues, and adds to the expense and
delay of civil litigation; however, mandanms re
view of significant ruliigs in exeeptional cases may

@ 2008 Thomison Reutors/West, No Claim to Orlg, US Gov, Works,

http:/web2, westlaw.comyprint/prinistream.aspx Tpift=HTMLBézdestination=atp ésv=Split... 1/7/2008202 8,W,3d 286°
202 S.W.3d 286

‘be essential to preserve important substantive and
procedural rights trom impairmont or loss, allow
tho appeilate courts to give needed and helpful dir-
ection to the Tew that would othorwise prove ely.
sive in appeals fipm fine] judgmonts, and spare
private parties and the public the time and money
wtterly wasted enduring aventual reversal of im-
properly conducted prossedings.

[8] Mandamus 250 O574(4)

250 Mandamus
2501 Nature and Grounds in General
2504 Remedy by Appeal or Writ of vor
"250k4(4) 1. Modification or Vaention of
Indgment or Order, Mest Cited Casea

Mandamus 280 €=032

~ 250 Mandamus .
ZSOIl Subjects and Purposes of Relief,

250LK(A) Acts and Proosedings of Courts,

Judges, and Judicial Officers
250k32 Kk, Proceedings in Civit Actions ia

Genera]. Mast Clied Cazes
Becmise a consolidation order usually doos not
threaten a defendant's substuntial rights, mandamus
typically does not lie fro a trial court's consollda~
fion order; however, if an ordiuary appoul is inad-
equate because extraordinary circumstances exist,
mandamus relief may be appropriate,

[6} Action 13 C=255

13 Action

"1301 Joinder, Splitting, Consolidatlon, and Sev-
eninge

13154 Consolidation of Actions
13k55 &, In General. Most Cited Cases

‘The express purpose of ihe rule allowing consolida-
tion of certain aotions ls to further convenience and
avold prejudice, and thua promote the ends of
justices, Vernon's Ann.Texas Rules Ciy,Proc, Rule
174,

[7] Action 13 €=757(5)

Page 3 of §

Pago 2

13 Astion

ISI Joinder, Splitting, Consolidation, end Sey
erance .
13k54 Consolidation of Actions

13k57 Actions Which Mey Be .Consolid-

13K57(5} k, Tort Actions, Most Cited
Cases
When considering plaintiffs’ motion to corieolidate
sctions alleging occupational exposurs to toxing
and careinogdns, come would consider the Mary-
lend factors, including: (1) eoitimon worksite; (2)
similar ovoupation; (3) shnilar time of axposure; (4)
type of diseaso; (5) whether plaintiffs were living ov
tleosased; (6) status of discovery in each oases ”
whether plaintiffs were represented by tho amma
aounsel; and (8) type of cancer alleged,

[8] Action 13 C956

13 Action .
130 Toinder, Splitting, Consolidation, and Sev-
‘erence
12k54 Consolidation of Actions

1356 k, Power to Consolidata, Most
Cited Cases

Although ths trial conrt has broad discretion to eon-
solidate cases, when all of the facts and oloum-
stances of a case unquestionably xequire a separate
inlal to prevent manifest injustios, and there ts no
‘Tact or circumstance eupporting or feuding to sup-
port a contrary conclusion, and the legal rights of
the parties will not be prefudiced. thereby, there is
ho room Zor tho exercise of discretion, Vernon's
Ann, Texas Rules Ciy.Proc,, Rule 174,

[9] Mandamus 250 @4(4)

250 Mandamus
2501 Nature and Grounds in General
250k4 Remedy by Apporl or, Writ of Error

250k44) k, Modifention or Vacation of
Judgment pr Order, Most Cited Cases

Uf it appears that the injustloe resulting Som refusal
to sever cases ormnot Inter be remedied on appeal,
the action of tha court is subject to control by man-

© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West, No Claim to Orig. US Goy, Works,

hitp://veb2.westlay. cony/print/printstrearn aspx ?prfi“HTMLBsidestination-atpésv=Split,

10/7/2008202 S.W.3d 286
202 8.W.3d 286

durus, Vernon's Ann.Jexas Rules Civ.Proc,, Rule
174,

[L0} Action 13 C=237(4)

13 Action
ISIN Joinder, Splitting, Consolidation, and Sev
erence
13k54 Consolidation of Actions
13k57 Actions Which May Be Consolid-
ated
13k37(4) ik, Circimstencss Precluding
Consolidation tn General; Prejudice, Most Cited
Casag
When considering motions to consolidats, courts
must balance the judiciet sconomy and convendende
that may be gained by consolidation against the
possibility that consolidation may cause delay, pre
Judice, or Jury confusion; tf the convenience factors
are substantially outweighed by the risk of an unfair
ontoome besause of prejudics ot gonfusion, then
the trial court abusos its discretion, in granting con-
solidation.

[U1] Action 13 G57(4)

13 Action
1300 Joindar, Splitting, Consolidation, and Sev-
erence
i5kS4 Consolidation of Actions
13k57 Actions Which May Be Cousclid-
ated
13k57(1) k, In General: Most Cited
Casas
When considering s motion to consolidate, the
dominant consideration is whether the trial will he
fair and impartial tp all partios,

[12] Action 13 €=57(5)

13 Action
3151 Joinder, Splitting, Consolidation, and Sev-
range
1354 Consolidation of Actions

13k57 Actions Which May Be Consolid-
ated

Page 4 of §

Page 3

15KS7(5) k, Tort Actions, Most Cited

Trlal courts should proceed with extreme cuution
waen consolidating claims {nvolving immature
torts; @ tort Is considered mature when thers has
‘been full end complete discovery, multiple Jury ver-

dicts, aud 8 persistent vitality in the plaintifty con
tentions,

[13] Action 13 €287(5)

13 Action

137 Joinder, Splitting, Conselidation, and Sev
erance .
13:54 Coasolidelion of Actions
13k57 Aotlons Which May Be Consolide
ated .
I3k57(S) k, Tort Actions. Most Cited
Casea

Consolidation of employee's claim of cocupetional
exposure to toxins and carcinogens resulting in can-

esr with claim by personal representative of de-~

ceasdd employes was not werrsnted, although the
status of discovery and plaintifts! represontation by
same counsel weighed in favor of consolidation; the
employees were contractors who did not share a
oormmon worksite for jrost of the time at issu, em-
ployees did not share shnilar cocupstions at all
‘times during thelr careers, lengths of time of expos~
we differed, parties disputed whether employees
suffered from same disease, aud fact that one bre
ployee was in remission while other employae had
dies weighed sgainst consolidation,

[14] Action 13 C=57(4)

13 Action
1310 Joiner, Splitting, Consolidation, aid Seve
eranes .
13k54 Consolidation of Actions
I3K57 Actions Which May Be Consolide
ated

13KS7(4) ke, Clroumatances Precluding
Consolidation in General; Prejudice, Most Cited
Cases

Conaolidation of cages should dot be used if it will

©2008 Thomson Reutters/West, No Claim to Orig, US Gov, Works,

hitp://web2. weatlaw.com/print/printstzeaus aspx’ prhHTMLE&-destination=atpaeveSplit.., 10/7/2008202 8.W3d 206
202 8.W.3d 286

untafrly affeot the outoome.

*288 Stephen C. Dillard, loy Soloway, Brett J,
Young, Fulbiight & Jaworski LLP, Tyoan Buthod,
Baker Botta LLP, Reagan W. Simpson, King &
Spalding LLP, Houston, for relators,

Allen M, Stewart, Kevih D. McHargue, Denyse F,
Clanay, Baron é& Budd, PC, Dallas, for real parties
in Interest,

Before McKEITHEN, ©. GAULTNEY and
KREGER, Jf,

OPINION

PER CURIAM, .

Relators Shell Ol] Co., Sheil Chemleal LP, United
States Stoel Corporation, Ameripan Chemistry
Council, Exxon Corporation, ExxonMobil O18 Cor
poration, Mobil- Chemical Company, Inc., Bitty!
Corporation, Union Carbide Corporation, and Radi-
ator Specialty Company seck a writ of mandamus
compelling the trial court to vacate its order consol

idating two cases for trial, We conditionally grant
mandamus relief.

BACKGROUND

Along with other plaintiffs, reel partios in interest
Herbert W. Wilkinson, . Peggy §, Hebert
(Wilkinson's, wife), and Maureen Ann Stubbs, indi-
vidually and as Personal Reprosentative of the
‘Heirs and Estate of Ben Lowts Stubbs, Deceased,
sued relators and other defendants, lu peragraph 23
of thelr live potition, real parties in interest contend
that Ben L, Stubbs and Herbert W. Wilkinson con
tracted cancer as a result of occupational exposuras
ta “toxins qnd carcinogens, including, but not fm-
fied to benzene, benzene|-Joontalning products,
paints, coatings, thinners, solvents, naptha, tolene,
xylene, styrene, butadiene; and butadione-contain-
ing products ... designed, produesd, manufactured,
proveased, used, maintained, sold, marketed, and/or
distributed by defendants...” However, in sub-

Page § of 8

Page 4

sequent parts of the petition, real parties in isterost
confine their clairas to injurles renting trom ox-
posure to benzene, beazens-containing products,
and organte solvents. Real parties in interest assert
optises of action for negligence, strict liability,
brench of warrehty, misrepresentation, conspiracy,
gross negligence, and concert of aation,

Relators and other defendants filed a motlon to
sever, and the tral vquct enterad an order severing
the plaintiffs’ claims into separate lawauits, Real
parties in interest subgequently fied a motion to
consolidate, and the trial comt entered em order
consolideting the Stubbs and Wilkinson claims for
tial, Relators then filed this petition for wrjt of
mandamus,

AVAILABILITY OF MANDAMUS RELIEE

(1][212} Am appellate court mey issue a writ of
mundamus when the tial comt bey abused its dis-
uretion and the relator lacks an adequate remedy Sn
appeal, Walker v. Packer, 827 8.W2d 833, 83940
(Tex,1992), A trial court has no diveretion In de-
jenmining*289 what the law 4s or aptbytog the law
to the facls, Je, at 840, “Thus, a cloar fallnre by the
tial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will

" constiluly an ebuse of discretion, and may result in

appellate reversal by extraordinary writ” Id With
respeot to whether an appellate remedy Is adequate,
“adequate” “has no comprehensive definitions itis
simply « proxy for the carefid: balance of jurlépri-
dential considerations that determine when appel»
fate courts will use original mandamus proceedings
fo reyigw the actions of lower courts.” Ja re

Prudentlal ins, Co. of Am, 148 S.W.3d 124, 136
(Tex.2004),

T4[5] Mandamus review of trial courts’ inoidental
interlocutory rulings unduly interferes with drial
court proceedings, diverts appellate courts’ atten-
tion to unlmportant issues, and adds to the expense
anc delay of civil litigation, - Jo, However,
“[mJandanus review of signifleent rulings in ax
ceptional cases tnay,be ossontilal to preserve import

© 2008 Thomson Reutare/West. No Claim to Orig, US Gov, Works,

hitpy/webz. westlaw.com/print/printstream.agpx?prft-HTMLRé:destinationatpé-sy=Split, 10/7/2008202 S.W.5d 286
202 S.W.3d 286

ant substantive and procedural rights from impair-
ment or lesa, allow the appellate corts to give
needed and helpful direction to the law thet would
othenvise prove elusive in appeals itom final judg
ments, and spare private parties and the public the
time and money utterly wasted enduring eventual
reversal of improperly conducted proceedings.” Jd,
‘The Supreme Court hes explained thet an appellate
ramedy is adequate when the benefits to mandamus
taview are outweighed by the detriments, Id Baw
oause 4 consolidation order usually doas not
threaten: ¢ defendant's substantial rights, mandamus,
typically does not lie from a irfal court's consolida-
ton order; however, if an ordinary appeal ja ina
equate becsuss extraordinary circumstaoes exist,
tnantdamas relief uiay be appropriate, dr ve Van Wa-
ters & Rogers, ina, 145 8W3d 203, 211
(Tex.2004),

THE CLAIMS

Ani Stubbs's interrogatory responass indicate that
from 1974 to 2001, Bea Stubbs worked as x con-
tract employse Zor.numerous employers at yerious
locutions, Stubbs's worksites insluded Exxon Plant
in Baytown; Tenneca Plant in Pesadeng; Shell Oil
Refinary In Deer Pari, Atlantis Richfiold in Hous-
jon, Chamelview, and Pasadena; Global; Rohm &
Haas in Deer Park; BP Amoco; Ethy! Plent; Chev-
tou Plant; and Mabay Plant, Stubbs'a various trades
inchided iron worker, equipment operator, pipait-
ter, fab helper, boilermeker, and rigger. Stubbs was
diagnosed with small cell lymphoma (also known
as chronio lymphocyte loukemie), & type of non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma, aud he died on December 8,
2005, at age 49.

Wilkinson's answers to interrogeforles state that
from 1971 te 1990, ke worked as 4 contract om-
ployes for numerous smployers at various job sites,
Wilkinson's worksites included Exxon Oil Refinery
in Baytown, Ethyl Corp. in Pasadena, Shell Chem-
ical in Doe Park, Monsanto Chemloat in Chocolate
Bayon, Mérichetn Rofinery in Wivnle, Amerisen
Hoist, Mobay/Bayer, Amoco Refinery in Toxas

Page 6 of 8

Page 5

City, Union Carbide Chemical Plant in Texas City,
Monsanto Cherntos) Plant in Texas City, Crown
Petroleum Plant in Pasadena, Dixte Chemica) Plant
in Bayport, Pak Tenk in Pasadena, Arco Company
in Channelview, Lyondell Chemical in Chan-
nelview; Goodyear in Pepadena, nnd Rohm & Hany
in Deer Park, Wlikinson's trades included painter,
Pipsfitter, und bollermeker, but the inujority of his
employinent history conetsts of work ag a pipefitter
and bollermaker, Acoording 1: Wilkinson, he was
exposed to benzene by inhaling fimeés and via
dermal absorption,

Wilkinson was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymph-
oma in 1986, However, in 1993, Wilkingon was
diagnosed with large *290B-cell lymphoma, a type
of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Wilkinson underwent
‘Treatment, aad fils disease has been in remission for
ten years. Relators contend Wilkinson's disease is
different from thet of Stubbs, bet reel parlos in in

terest assert that both suffer from essentially the
seme disease, .

Relators contend that. Wilkinson and Stakbs
“worked in many different units in separate and un-
releted facilities, With maybe one exception, they
never worked at the same faefllty at the same
time,” Relators alvo assert that many of the facilit-
Jes “ara enonnous, aud employ thousands of con-
tractors on thousands of jobs in different parts of
intekrated sites.” According t» 2 document pre-
pared by velators, the indusiial hygiene export,
hired by real parties in Interest alleged thet Stubbs
was exposed to benzene at Lyondall end BP/
Amoco, but Wilkinson was not, and Wilkitson was
exposed to benzene at Union Carbide, but Stubbs
Was not"! Real parties in interest respond that
both men “worked as bollermakers and pipefittdrs
at the Exxon Baytown facility for inarly years in the
1970's and 1980's," Real partiog In Interest atate
‘that while at Exxon, both men worked in “several”
units that contkined benzené, Rest parties also as~
sert that both Willdnson and Stubbd used a ben
eeue-coptaihing product called Liquid Wrench

while working at Baxon, Real parties in interest

© 2008 Thomaon Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig, US Gov, Works,

httpy//web2, westlaw.com/pri nt/printstream aspx ?prit~HTMLEé:destination~atp&sy=Split, .

10/7/2008202 8.W.3d 286
202 $.W.3d 286

farihor state that whilo working at the Shell refinery
in Deer Park, Willsinson and Stubbs worked in units
contuiting benzene, The response of real parties in
interest ta the petition for writ of mandamus does
not specify the precise locatlons, if any, at which
Wilkinson and Stubs worked at the same time,

FI, Stubbs hes non-suited Union Carbide,
CONSOLIDATION

[OUTHBISILIOILI 1] Rule 174 of tho Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure provides as follows:

() Consolidation. When actions involying ¢ com-
aion question of lew or fhot are pending before the
‘court, [t may order a joint hearing or trial of any or
all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order
all the uctions consolidated; and it may muke such
orders concerning proceedings therein as may fend
fo avold wunecessary costs or delay,

TEXR. CLV. B, 174(a), Although TEXLR. CIV, P,
174 gives the trial court broad diseretfon to sonsol-
idate cases, the trial couri's discretion 1s not untim-
ited, Womack v. Berry, 158 Tex, 44, 291 S.W.2d
677, 683'(1956).
‘The express purposo of the rule is to farther eon-
‘yenienve and avoid prejudice, and thus promote the
ends of justice, When all of the facts and ciroums
sinnees of fhe case unquestionably require a separ
ate trial 10 prevent manifest injustice, and there is
no tact or eireumstancs supporling or tending to
support a contrary concluslon, and the legal rights
of the parties will not ba projudiced thereby, thers
js'no room for the exercise of discretion... If It also
ears that the injustice resulting from such refis-
a anat later be remedied ov appeal, the action of
the court is subject to control by mandaraus,

fd, Courts must bulanee the Judlsiat economy and
convenjouce that may be gained by consolidation
against the poselbility that consolidation may cause
delay, prepudies, or jury confusion, Dal-Briar Corp,
vy Baskette, 833 $.W.2d $12, 615 (Tex.AppeBt

Page 7 of 8

Page 6

Paso 1992, no writ), “IF the convenience frotory are
substantially outweighed by the risk of an unfair
outcome because of prejudice cr confusion, then
the tial court™ abuses Its discretion jn braming con-
solidaiton,” fd. at 616. The dominent coneldera~
tlon is whether the trial will bs fair and impartia!
*29% t0 all partles, dn va Ethyl Corp, 975 S.W.2d
506, 614-15 (Tex, 1998). In Gity, the Supreme
Court adopted the Maryland factors to aid courte In
determining whether consolidation of claims ix
likely to prejudice Gr confuse the jury. 7d at 614,
The Maryland fhetors include: “(1) common watks-
ite; (2) similar occupation; (3) similar time of ex-
posure; (4) type of disease; (5) whether plaintiffs
wore living or deceased; (6) status of discovery in
sagh cage; (7) whether all plaintiffs wers represen-
ted by the seme counsel; and (8) type of cancor al-

* legad." Id at 611. ‘The Supreme Court cautioned

thet there is no mathemetical formula for deterthin«
ing the number of claims that may be properly con-
golldated, and some of the Maryland factors should
be given more weight than others, fd. ,

[12] In addition to the Maryland factors, tial couris
should consider the maturity of the alleged tott, Jy
ra Van Waters & Rogers, Inc, 145 8:W3d 203,
208 (Tex.2004). A tort is considered mature when
there has been full and complete digeovery, mul-
tiple jury verdicis, and 8 persisieut vitality in the
plaintiffs’ contentions, -id ‘Trik] gourts should
“proceed with sxtreme caution” when oohsolidating
claims (nyelving immaiure torts, fre Bristal-Ah-
ers Squibb Co, 975 8,W.2d 601, 603 (Tex.1998),

[13] The first Maryland factor, common worksite,
weighs sgainst consolidation because Wilkinson
and Stubbs worked Jargely at different sites and
nuultiple worksites are at issue, See Lthpi, 975
S.W2d at 615. Furthermore, because ‘Willktnson
and Ginkbs were Goth employed by Independent
gontractors, the necessary factual inquiries becoms
more complex. See i The second fiotor, similar
opcupations, likewise favors separate wlals. Both
Wilkinson and Stubbs: worked as a plpofitter and
botlermaker, However,. Stubbs also worked as an

© 2008 Thomson Reutors/West, No Claim to Orig, US Gov, Works.

hitp://web2, westlaw.com/print/printstream,aspx?orft=HIMLE&destinati jonmatpaesveSplit,,. 10/7/2008202. 8,W,3d 286
202 8.W.3d 286

tron worker, eqnipurent operator, fab helper, and
rigger. Stubbe worked for approximately twenty-sev-
en years, whtle Wildason worked for nineteen
years, Furthermore, the record contulns eviderics
that the benzene exposure levels of Willdinson and
Stubbs differed,

Real parties in interest contend Wilkinson and
Stubhs suffered from tha same disease; howaver,
reletors contend ‘Wilkinson suffered from Hodglcin's
lymphoma. rather than non-Hodgldn’s Jymphoma,
While we exprass no opinion about the inedleal
evidence, we find that the existence of a dispute re-

garding whether real parties in interost had the *

same type of canoer weighs against consolidating
the claims, See generally Ethyl, 975 S.W2d at
616. Additionally, Wilkinson js alive and his dis-
case bas been in remission’for ten years, but Stubbs
is deceased, Ags the Supreme Court noted “in
Ethyl,"Jsjoms courts have expressed concam that
permittig the consolidation of cl#ims by living
workers with olaims of the families of deceused

workers would unduly prejudice the trial because -

thers is a dengor thet the claims regarding deceased
workers or thoue who have life-epding disenses will
‘boot-strap the claims of workars who do not have
fatal conditions[,J” See id The Ethyl oourt alsa
pointed out that this concern has “oonsiderable
forse” when the types of discases suffered by the
workers yery and it fs disputed whethar thdse dis-
eases will result in death. See fd Therefore, we
conolnde this factor weighs against consolidetion,

The remaining Maryland ‘factors (status of discov

ery and whether sams counsel represents both
plaintiffs) are undisputed and favor consolidation,
Sae id. Howayer, there fzotors receive muvh lesz
weight than the others. See id? Van Waters, 145
S.W.3d ab 211, Considering the dispute over ceusa~
tion and the level of development of this litizatlon,
*29% the ttial court wes roguired te procead with
extems cation when considering consol{dation,
Compare Etiy!, 975 8,W.2d at 610 (asbestos litiga-
tion),

CONCLUSION

Page 8 of B

Page 7

[14] In tis case, the medical evidence is disputed,
In addition, Wilkinsoh and Stubbs have fairly di-

. verse work histories, Stubb's work history is signi-

Gierntly longor than Wilkinon’s, knd Stubbs's es-
‘mated exposure to benzene js greater than Wilicin-
sous, Furthertacre, Wilkinson's disease ha been in
remigsion for ten years, but Stubs is decdased.
‘Mout of the Maryland factors weigh against consol
idation, and the two faotors thet favor consolidallon
yaoslve Jess weight than the others, Ethyl, 975
S.Wi2d at 616, Van Waters, 145 S.W3d el QU.
‘The dominant consideration must be whetller a gon
solidated tral will be fair and impartial to all
parties, See ity, 975 8.W.2d et 914-15, Consol
idetion should not be used if it will unfairly affect
the outcome, §ee generally Dal-Briar Corp, 833
8.W.2d at 616, Woe concludes tho trial court abused
its discretion by cohsolidating the oases for tel,

. aad relators lack en adequate appellate remedy, Sae

generally Van Waters, 145 S&,W3d at 211
(Mandamus reliof wss appropriate because an ap~
pellate court deuld not remedy the likely juror con-
fusion resulting from a consolidated trial, and any
advantage gaiued in judicial economy or avoidance

‘of repetitive costs was “overwhelmed by the grodter

danger an unfalr trial would pose fo the integrity of
the judicial procoss,”),

‘The petition for writ of mandamus is corilitionally
granted. The writ will issus only if the trigl court ~
doea not vacate its consolidation order in accord
ance with this opinion,

PETITION FOR, WRIT OF MANDAMUS CONDI-
TIONALLY GRANTED,

Tex. App,-Beaumont,2006,
Jn re Shall] Of1 Co,
202 8.W,3d 286

END OF DOCUMENT

© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig, US Gov. Works.

hitp://web2, westlaw.com/print/priatsiream aspx 7prft-HTMLBadestination=atpécsv=Spit,. 10/7/2008salt
Westlaw.
145 5.91 203
145 8 38203, 47 Tox, Sup. Ch FH

>
Suprema Court of Teitis,
Ine, YAN WATING & ROGERS, INC,, Ralater,
‘Noy O30777,
Bopi, 9, 2004,

Fnokgrownd; Plant omployeys wsousht soxletert
aation against multiple ohemleal minmefactgrers,
marketers, sellers, end dloiributors, The 370% Jud
olal Dlatelot Court, Hidalgo County, Nos Gonzulez,
J, denied defendants' moilon fo soopal, pmnied
omployaed motion to soloof trint plaintiffs, and
abated discovery ao bo nonirial plalntidi, Hmploy-
aes sought mandamis reliet Allg’ the Corpus

Chiistl Court of Appouls denied relief withow opin, |

Jon, the Supreme Court, 988 8.20 740, donled rev
Hof without prajtidiee, After trlal court dented omi=
ployovs! motion for reponslderallen, ginployads

+ pought mondarns relict The Corpus Christ Court
of Apponls, 31 ScW.9d 413, granted partial yeltaf,
Bonployens sought fadher mandamus relies The
Supreme Court, 62 8,W.ad 197, conditionally gran-
wt ‘wit, The Distrlot Cont then ordered corsolida~
tion of byenty omployess’ elulms pgwinat nine dlo~
fendonis, Defendants unsuccessfully yeqeestod ro
fo? trom: the Corpus, Chrlett Court of Appaals. They
shan pottilonad tor yrlt of manda,

Holdingos Tho Supreme Court held thats
1) voneolidation was ‘myroper, and
mandamus relief wie warranted by oxtesordbns
ary viraumatennes,
‘Welt vonditionslly gremted,
‘West Heacnotor
+ [A] Aption 13 G87)

15 Action
VBIE Joindor, Eplitiing, Consolidation, and Sav

ormsios
‘J5k54 Consglidatton of Actions

Page 2 of 11

Page 1

Y9kS7 Action Which May Bo Coneofid-

TARS7CT) Ky Tn Geass), Meat Cited
Crate .
‘Tha dominant consideration in every ogee jor de-
termining whethor various cletmg are appropriate
fer consolidation fs winsther the telat whl bo ioir
and imperial 40 olf pavtleg,

12} Action 13 Gare7 (4)
13

Agtion .
TIT Ioindex, Bpiliting, Consolidation, and Sey
oranss :
. 13k34 Consolidetion of Aotions
V8kS7 Actions ‘Which May By Comnolic

JakS7a) k, Girciuataagea Proskeding
onan fn Gonerul; Prejudice, Most Cited -
a
Consolidation should be ayoidad Hf ty would onnee
aunfyalon or prejudioe na to renter the jury inoape,
nbls of finding the faops on the basi of the evid=
NOR.

JS] Trial $83 @3(2)

Sea Trial .

a" Wotiog of Trial and Pralkainmy Provesd-

ngs .
‘3R8k9 Separate Trlels In Game Gaus :

BG8K3(2) I, Dinoretion of Cour, Mest

Cited Coock .

‘Wap injustlon wil resule from consolidated telola, a +

tral eoart had no divsration to dony eepatato trials,

[a] Avilon 13 G=E7(8) ,

43 Actlon
JAIL dolider, Spiltilsg, Consolideilon, md Boy

grange .
1akd4 Consolidation of Actiona
12k57 Actloas Which May Bt 'Consolid-

1SteHG) x SHELA clon MAE CHAE

©2008 Thomuon Revtera/West, No Clalm ta ‘Orig, US Gov, Works,

bitpul web? wweullaw.com/printfprintatioan naps tay Sphh pri L IML Eset topdert=, 1O/2/2008

:
i
t
|
|145 8, Y/.ad 205
145 G.W.2d 203, 47 Tox, Sup, Of F172

Cases

"The Sallowing facto eid delamination whather *
songolldailon is approprlata tn a mays tort oag6 ale
Taging otposure in a workplocer ) whether the
plaintiet sharett a common work site, (2) whether
Sho plabitlfiy shored sbnilar oocnpnilonsy (2) wheth-
or tho plalntifts bad similiar times oF oxprsnre; ®
whether the pleinilifs nye 9 atmilar type oP dla
owso} (8) Whethor plinif ars sliye op dacsasad;
(G) the blahus of dlacaveryy (7) whethor afl plninttiit
era roprouonitadd by the samo oounndl; (8) fie typo ot
gamoer allogwd, IF ay; and (9) the type of produots
jo Wiilols the pletntiite were exposed, +

[5] Aciton 13 CoerTE)

13 Action :
ANU Joluder, Splitting, Consilidutlon, and Bay-
arenas . my
19k54 Consolidation of Aotians:
4 T9kS7 Aullony Whick Mey Be Conaolide
stan +
1355703) Kk. "Tort Actions, Most Clted
Caves .
Ag the munber of Zaotors that diffiyent owes, have

jn oormmon Increaves, fie numbor of elroy that can *

‘bo sonsulteated and irled tugether may increase fn #
ranay tor vase alleging expnears Ina worlgplacs;
but thers Jo uo mathemafionl formula, and some
‘iaotors shed ba given more welght then cthsrs,

[6] Avtion 13 @==787(6)

13 Aotion
TSI Joindey, Splitting, Conwelidation, ond Soy
erates
19154 Conaolidation of Autions
78kS7 Avilona Which May Bo Conactld-

1SK57(5) Ie Tort Actions, Mast Cited
Caen
Ths meximim umber of claims thes ows be age
gropated |y not mn absoftts, and the articular oft
eutatenoes dotermins fie outer Iinits beyond
swhioh trial courts aanngt go in consolidating olsims
In a mbei tort case alleging expose fn a Worle

Bago d of 11

Faga a

laos.
[7] Antiog 13 73718)

13 Action
(S11 Joiner, Bpliting, Consolidation, and Sav
‘eranoo
{3ie84 Consolidation of Aotlons
1987 Astlons Which May Bs Conanlld-

I9s7(3) ke, Tort Antions, Moat Oltad

‘Cason

A tial coart dsoling whethor fo oonsolideto olaims
1) a maga tort couse eileging exponue in x workplaog
tnst welgi the ye of proludice or conthaion
agatiat enonamny of sore,

(8) Action 13 OF=S70Q

15 Avtion
{STIL Joladei, Splliting, Consulidation, and Sov.
‘branos
13154 Conpolidetlon of Aations
18457 Aotlone Which Mey Be Consolid-

TEKST) Kk. Chronmstgnoea Preolndlng,
Gansolldstion in Goneral; Frojudice, Most Glted

tod

8
Consolidation ts not made agrepet tayraly by
some factors Indioailng dissinilerttes within ths
soneolidatyd olabois; vether, it is vital thet 6 party
seoldng rslie? dom a consolidation order establish
how the differences among tho oonsolideied chats
will inpterially nffeot the Thiroas of a trial,

iP) Avtion 13 C3715)

13 Avtloy . ,
1301 Jolodar, Splitting, Consolidation, und Boy

aTanos
T3k84 Conaoitdattan cf Actions
‘igkS7 Actons Whlsh May Be Conctiid-

TIKES) ks, Tort Avtiona, Must Clted
Cevoa ,
"The mioturlty of tho alleged tort is a consideration

het

* 2008 Thorneon Routan West, lo Chim to Org, US Gov, Works,

niips//vreb2. qveetlaw oom/prlnt/peintstream aspx tive Spli Sept ET MAL Bécfin topéca=..

10/20/2008145 8, Wide 208 ,
148 B.W.3d 208, Af Tox, Sap, Ch J, 1172

for detanalning, whether fo sonsolldats claims ta a
mags fort gaie alleging qxposare joa worlrplage,

{LOY Astion 13 Gme75)
13 Action

Action
YON Toindor, Splitting, Consolidation, and Sov

aio8 :
‘T8k34 Consolidation of Aations ”
ysk57 Aotions Which Mey Bo Goneolil-

TSKS7C) by Tort Avttons, Most Cited
Canes

Ae a consideration for determining whether to con
solidete claims in a rasa tort onno wlloging expos
ro fr a worlplaoy, 6 tort fs mative only whon thors
has beor fill and somplote disoovery, Tuttle ary
yordinty, and 8 persietant vitwiity in tho piabniiéfe
sonientlons,

TEL Action 13 Gae57(5)

+ 12 Agtion
SIL Jolndor, Splitting, Cuavolldaton, wad Boy

ated

Tanne
+5kS¢- Consolidation viAsHane wee
13k57 Avion Which May Bo Consolid-

1313703) ky Tort Action. Meat Chted
Cho
Alieged tart baeod om workplags expoomre to “oxte
soup” of ohemicele yqwe was immahee, and, thea, «
fie Inlad vourt havl !925 dleasetion to consolidate erin
ployees! dzaimfier obibiw egainet mamfyotarers
ang sollers and nevdsd to proczed with oxtrune
gautten,

fiz} Action 13 C576)

13 Aston
1ST Jofnder, Spiiting, Cenwelidation, and Bay

range
{3154 Consolidation of Actions
yak37 Aotions Whish May Be Congolté-
uted .
yausi(s) ke, Tort Actions, Mest Clied

Page 4 of 11

Page 3

Caves

Conuolidpting vinimy of twenty former empleyess
alleging workplava sepomure {0 vombinavion of
chemicals mamafnovwed or cold by nino defendania
was improper in waned fort onge; tho facility oun
fsined multiple work sltes emposing diffrent gm-
ployees to diferent mixtures, the employees had
Sisghnilor cesupatlons ahd began worl during,
rango of ihirtoon years, and they allegbd mops then
Hiysfive physlonl alindnte and did not olaum (hat
he diffarent injures atenmed from the sews
sows, And, thus, establishing a defondont'a Unbil-
Ry bared on one plalntiff'y ogpmsure to a ental
shamlon! combination would not ald in eonbllshing
a diferent dofandant'y [ability for another
plelaiiifa exposure ta ri entirely differont mbchere
vf chemiorls, bu: would anly serve to profidlos and
gonfuye jury,

[83] Mandamps 280 God (1)

230 Mandamas
‘2501 Nainra snd Grounda in General
250k4 Remady fy Appsal or Wilt of Error
2BUKACL) ky in Gonaru, Mest Cited Oqgen
‘Absout oxtraordinary olronmeatenoes, mindambe
Swill not Issue unless dolondacta Teck mf adequate
eppelinte remudy,

[ea] Mandamus 239 Ge7eACY)

250 Maniacs
2807 Nature and Urpinde Ip Gonerrt
250kd Reinedy by Appeal or Writ of Urrar
250KAC%) k,n General, Mast Citud Causa

An appos) Iv Inadequate Tor mandamea purposos
syhen parties aro hi danger of pommently losing
substamfiel rightay such a danger arlsos whet fhe -
yallate court would not bs able to cura the error, thy
yparty'a ablifty to present e viable wala oy defense fa
yidetod, or tie error cannot be made part of the wp
pollate revord,,

{18} Mandamus 250 C-74(8)
280 Mandamus *

©2008 Thomsen Router Woot, No Claim to Orig, US Gry, ‘Works,

sto esti co ptpinsonns apieeSpitaeptXTM. Bair tony

10/20/2008145 BAW.dd 203
45 BAVAG 203, 47 Tox, Sup, Ct J. 1172

2501 Neture and Groviida in General
250k4 Remody by Appasl or Writ af Biror
Ba0KK3) I Motiona and Ordora In Gener-
ei}, Most Cited Gasoa

Moaniamuy 250 O82

250 Mardemg
28001 Subjedta and Purpose of Reliet

ASOKA) Acty and Frossedings cf Coutts,

Judges, and Judicial Officora
259132 ke, Procaodings tn Clvit Avtiona Ja

Gonpral, Moet Clied Gases
Boones most consolidation orders do wot.threaten a
dofvadants mubstentlal rights, mandenns typloally
doos not ie from a win! opus consolidation order,
‘ont Hf extraordinary cloumsimoss ara present; that
make an ordlnary eppedt Inadequate, mandianws re
Net may bs warranted.

[RG] Manstaerg 250 Gar53 :

250 Megaman
2501 Subjects and Purpoasa of Reliad
Q50iI(A} ‘Aes md Frocsedings of Couris,

Jndges, and Judiclat Offiaors .
. 250K32 k, Froveedingy In Civ!l Aotions in
Generel, Mont Cited Cape

Batraordinory obwametanocs wetted mandamus
relief? fom sonyolidation of olaimn by iwanty
former omploysan alleging workplace pxpowure $0
shomlodly mamtfactured ov sold by nine dofendantes
eivon the toidily veralated olnima of laintis axe
posud ty gniirely diticrent shernisals prodivsd by
‘Aifferont defendants, conplidetion sisked the jury
finding against 8 defendant based on ahoey mo
bard, on ovidense tegetding a difforant plaintif® or
ont of retatance to find against a defondant wlth
regerd to pie plsinlif and not another, and an mp
pollate court oould wat remedy the Wkaly jusor obiw
tusion,

1208 Lansford ©, Irexon, Ghia Lucero Miller,
recon & Wola), P.O, Karen %. Muston, Belen &
Bote, LB. Houston, Béuerdo &, Resrfgues,
Raddgnaz, Colvin, Chancy & Smeg, LiPy

Page $ of 11

Pogo

Browhvvilie, James f, Moore, Baler & Hometlor;

LLP, Howaton, 8, James Rausoh, Rausch Law Of
Sve, Graubury, James 8, Gnlbrnith, MoLeod Alex
midor Powel & Apifel, BC, Gulypeton, W.
Wendell Hell, Robsrt G. Nowman, Fulbright & Ja-
world JuLPy San Antonla, Bradley A, Saok2on,
Bat L, Roynnlde, Royston Rayzor Viokoy & Wil
ams, LLP, Honsfon, Willan Ay Abernathy,
Meredith Donel) & Abemotiy, PC, Cork
Chalet, Adrian Teafeet Marthnsz, Mezedith Dounell
& Abemethy, 7,G,, MeAllen, Miller Marsdtth, Coy:
pu Gholi, Amulio M, Avdats, Lan Olive of
Amulfo Avosta, *206 Phary, Arthar R. Aloiquist,
Mchatly & Wobor, PC, Houston, Key Andrews,
Brow) MeCeroll, LLP, Austin, Rebar: Valadez,
Shelton & Valdez, P.C., Sen Antonla, 0, Don
Sohanor, Scluner & Simanlk, B.C, Corpus Chilath
Michnal Mi. Gibeun, Baylco Glbyou Camegie Fiygen
Shuoninakor & Moysr LLP, Houston, TX, far ofner
‘Sitorauted parties. ,
Josoph A, Grint, Sheehy Supe & Ware, Ply
Houston, Masoy Ji, Greer, Tulbrigkt & Jayorais
Telit, Norton A, Colvin Jr, Raodrlgnes Colvin,
Chanay & Bans, LLP, Brownsville, and Andrew
©, Schirmatekor 11, Sohirmelster Ajdmls, LLP,
wally Dick Brown, Crain Caton & James, ahd
Rolert B, Mores 1, Crain Caton & domes, PCy
Robert Scott, Abrams Boott & Brivkléy, LLP, *
Howton, Lea Ann Sib, Robert G, Rowman,
Rosemarie Kanuaky, Fulbright & Jaworski LL.B,
Ban Antonio, TS, for Rulator,

Frawiveo J, Rodriguez, Rodriguez Tovar & De Loi
Santos, LLP, Xeiih oh, Livesay, Livy Law OF
fon, ModJien, ‘TX, for Respondent,

PER CURIAM,

"Tas loses in this mundus procesdiig ls whother
tho tin} opurt erroneously senmolidated for trial the
workplee joxle tort olalme of twonty plalntiffe
against nine defendants, Becsuse we hold thet the
tela} court abused Its discretion and the defendants
jive tio adaquule xamedy by apposl, We voniithons
ally grant mandermna rellaf,

‘The underlylig igetlon was filed bn ‘Yoa4 by 434

© 208 Thomson Reutora/ Went, No Cluttn to Orig. US Gove ‘Works.

tilpy/vsb2.wortay,oomn/ ln gdntetroam aspx taySp lie ATM Basten, jopaeral= I.

10/20/2008145 B.W.3d 208
145 B.Wd 208, 47 Tex, Bmp, Ch J, L272

Plaintit’s agalnet approrlmetsly fifty-five detent
ants, The plolyitis ars former employees of the
Porker-Hannifin. Corporation wha worked nt Parl+

+ gts Orring real menetavturing plant ir MoAllsa,

‘Texas, The plnintits, all roprvented by the pame
coumsyl, allege Injuries oausod Ly Workplave papas
pra to a combination of chomionls and produote-to-
whieh thay refer to as 8 “fosig soup." Pinhitifis sl
loge ‘tnt fhe chosloele yore made or supplied to
the plait by the defendants, The, trial court consol
{dated the claime of twonty of the pants nd get
foo alains for: teal, Nine defndonts neste volte?
‘from the opnaolidition order,

Bech of tho plaintiffs bi the twenty consolldnted
panes way amployad ut the MoAtlen plent whan St
closed tis dopra irr 2992, but the plilntifin’ tars
defen at tho plant range from 1975 {9 1988, "The
qworty plaintliis held p combined thisly-live clffore
ent joby during (holr tenures at the plant, end moet
of the Joba ware shared by only w few plaintiffs, No
Fingle job was hetd by oil Sventy pientiifs. The
ParkerHaaniin feallity wae eluo gorge of ov:
eval buildings, and workers wilh different jobs
worked In different arosa of thy plant Umployeos
sware ofton segregated irom ciber erows, md - fio
plant had umultiple ay oondivioning systorio and
dayndirs®t tahlas that Hmited chemical exposure to
partonlar arena, The twenty plabntfis allege wn age
iogals of more then Filysive injurlew or aymp+
fom, many of whigh pre not shared, but tho mot
common belog headaches, oye iitatlon, nage trite»
+ fiom, skin icritaiion, mid throat irrfuation,

plained —thet—the.uleL_comrt whould oonsidar fie

‘This is the Usted petition for writ of mantigava we
have ponnidsred in this pnae, In 1997, the Slat const
frsuet) tires arcere: 4 vowdolidating twenty
plaintiffs foy trlaly 2) limiting, the defendants’ dis»
dovery tp ious twenty plalntifis and abating ell dla»
oovery for tho romalniag 434 plolnltits, amd 3)
conylng the dovandantet vequest to compel om amy
gyor to on Intorrogatory fiat would line revered
all phystolane wha Minkod gy of the plalutilis) in
Jnclgn to expose to the defendants! produota. ‘Tho
dofondawis sought mandamve relist regarding enh

Page 6 of 11

Page 5

of the three ordera, Wis dented all relief without
prajudice to give fhe tris) cours aa oppirtunliy to
renonuider *207 the Cigcoyery pbutamint order in
light of la ry Cafanial Pinaitie Co," whigh wes
Ismuad ‘While the petlon wes ponding? Wo alee
auggewied that the tial court rovonsiéor the Inter
rogatory arday shoukl it detemmipo that dlucavery
shouki wot be ubyted™ We dle not address the
ponsotldation Jeows ab sat tin, .

EN, 968 B.W.dd 938 (Tex.19h4),

FN, Jira Fon Wetors & Reger, fita,,
au aves 740, TAL (Ten1898) (Mea Wee
ors),

RNG, fd.

+ ‘The doferidants asked the trial court to revoneicler

ihe preylow! orders in Wghi of Jn ra Colonlal
Pipeline Co, Ader almout a yonr, the bist yourt fied
act ried on the motion, but had allowed plalnttfint
pommel to subsalt a different group of plalalltis tor
lsl, The defordants azain aon and yolief,
alleging inmfflcient discovery nnd improper con=
sulidetion, ‘The court vf eppowls granted pertial ros
‘Hof ag to the defendsnta’ request fet plaintiffs eup-
loment thelr answers 1D the Interrogetury sonoem~
thelr physicians! "Tis Courk granted furs
ther rele? by dirsoting the inet vourt to vavate Tt
orders thot’ abated diseovery and ellowed the
plaintitis: to selogt the olalia to bo, tind) Fret
‘With regaid fo ths consolldailoh fosne, we oH

otra ostdallehed In fy re Etkyt Comm ¥® ond fir
pe Bristol-Myors Sguith,™ and oowid do 20 only
iler adaquate Miscuvory wes connpheted

PNA, Jn eo Yon Wade & Rogers, Ina, 31
SWS 413, 421 (TomAppeGerona Chrtatl
"9000, orig, pravawding),

TS, In ve Van Waters & Rogers, Ino, 92
ne 181, BOT (Pox. 2001) (Faq Waters

+ FANG, B75 B/WF2d 606; 61] (Tex. 1395),

©2008 Thonison Rovters/ West, No Gini ta Orlg, UB Gov. Werke,

itp feeb, west oom/printprintstonra. agpatey~Bpltdepr eT MLB acd. : topdermb™|. jova0/2008148 B,Y.3d 202
AS SAV 3d 208, 47 Tox, Sup, Ch 1, 1172

FAT, 975 S.Wold 601, 608 (Tat, 1993),
NG, Peo Were JG, 62 Bat 203,

Plaindflh subuequently mover! to oonsaldate tor th
al the original fventy plalotifis from the first man-
darnis, A aixteenspage ohert of fle plaintiffs and
thelr Joh hisioviss and symptoms wes mbrottied tn
support of the maton, Tho defmndarts objaoted to
tha nominated gaoup of plaintiffs, erguing that only
one plaintiff! should be fred et w time, The flat
court granted the plakife! motion ant teeved the
ourent oonaclidation order, stating that the court
wen “of the oplnton the titel Plaintiffs .. {movi] the
oriterta emunolated. by the Supreme Court” and
should be sonsolidoted for tral, Tho dofendants tz
qesied relief from the ocurt oF mppenls, which wea
denied In 9 atiort poy.vurlama oplalon, .

TUZIB] in determining whether vectous olabng sre,
a ppronre for vousolldation, “the diminark cone
alderation in ovary cave iy vehathor tho srk will bs
fair ond Impartisl io all partion.” ¥ Consolid.
fion should ve avoided JP It would oeuse
® toonfiston ox mrejudiog we to render ihe jury ine
oapnblo of finding the faote on the basls oF the evld-
pyoe” "PNY FE an ighustioe will result from cone
solidnted triula, e tral caurt “has no disoretion to:

ony separate teal”
PNG Lihyt, 975 Sy Weld we Oi4-15, *
FNIO, Jd et G12 (quoting Comortl ¥

Armstrong World Indus, Ina, 72 Fad”

1003, 1008 (2d Ohy,1995)),
FING), 44 nt 610,

[AISIESILTI To ale in the determineilon of whether
oonnolidation fa appropriate in a taesi tort ones ale
Toring, oxpoaura in x workpleae, thls Coutt fi bihyt
rdopted the “Marylaid Protons’ (1) whether the
plalntiffe efsred 2 poonnan work elle; (2) whothey
tho plalalitly shared shniler oucupations; (2) seheth:
or te pinlailt& hadi ebnilar times of expusura, @
whether tho "208 plalntifia have o slmiler ae at
‘dicdaae! (3) wholher puintit ave allve ov déteasotiy

* op lisnite

Page 7 of 11

Page 6

(6) thy buns of dlnoovery; (7) wheiber alt plalnttite
we reprosonted by dio sare soungel; (8) the type of
eimogt elleged, 12 anys and (9) the type of produals
ja whlch tho plaintiffs ware exposed! Ih Athy
we oxplalned the onneldersitona In gpplying there
Factors

FNN2, a at G11,

As the nunibar of Marylend fhotora that different
cagoa have bt oominon Inoransa, the number of
Those olaims that ow be wid together may ine
prose, But thera is np mthemntival: formula, wad
tome of the Maryland Saotorn should be given more
welght than , Tho nraxinemn number of
clalits that oon bo aggregstetl fa not en absuluto,
and the pedal alrounistaaven determine the out
jayond which irtel gourty camot gn,P

TNS.

‘A tela) court rust also “weigh the risk of prajudjge
‘oF nontusion ngsinat economy of eval,” “Ht

RN Ja

18] Gonsolldetion {2 not improper merely hocause
some Tentors Indleste that dlostmtleritiag exist withe
dnt tite ognsptideted slaims, Rather, lt is vital that a
party soaking relief from 2 vonsolidation order e5-
tells how the cifferencos among the sonzolidated
olsima will meterlaliy afibot the ‘filmes of #
‘tisk FNIS

FNTS, Beistob-digrons, 975 8,W.2d ot 60-04,

PILOT] A fiother: pati derntion fa the appurlty
Of tho alleged pot?8! In fn re Beiolalidyere
Squibb, wa Wntracted lowor oamrta to “proowed wlth
axienis caution" when aonwolidaling claims oF Im~
mature tori A tort fe maetera only when
© tthora haa been full and complete disvavery, mul
‘ie Jury vordluls, ond a porstatont vitaltiy in the
ploinii?fi’ [ountontiond).’ "Fle Beumuss 0
"oxig soup” oove bay pyer bao (lad or eppoalod tn
‘Texan, the tort 43 Immature, Henge, the tial oot

© 2008 Thomsen Repteral West, Mo Clplm to Orlg, US ev, Works,

itpivreb2, weatlayy oom/print/prlntstream.aspaTar=Splitéeprfi-ATMLR&ta=_topdonst 10/20/2008145 8,W,3d 208
45 BW ,3d 203, 47 Tor, Sup, (5,1 172

frag fous dlsoretion to oonealidete digwhniler olstme
send must procsed wiih extreina canilon, Whh thls
jn mind, we tum fo the applioxthmn of the Merylend
Yhotors to this oaue,

FINDS, Stig, OTS BAW,26 at 610,

FNIT, Brlatolobtyers, 975 8, Wi2d st 603,

RNG, £2 Quoting MoGovara, dis Anatps-

Is of Maw Torts for dudgey, 13 TEX. L. .

RBY, Lua, 1845 (1995)),
4, Cowman Wark ks

[12] Plaintifis wryus that wack of the plainiits
worked at tho sma Tacifity and, sharezore, hated a
vommem worl aff, The defendants gounter that the
pleat wee Jarge Amd had govertl separa worl
avsa-byen eoparata buildings-tbat onnatiite separ
ate work gies, Dotormining whet ooneiltaies y oom
sion Work site does not tara merely ox Tooatlon, tit
on the similaity of exposures that avowed of &
purtunlar lovstlon fi order te shaplify proof of
product idontitfoation *¥ Troating te Parker
Vantin facility ae a single work alfe would groatly
compllants produut {dentificatlon fo this one bo
cuqise tho qvidenoe aliows thet different nixturos of
ghemiontn were used in different avews of the plant,
Use of multiple aly condiloning and ventilation
ayatems snd cowndrett fable. tedyoed tho [icoll+
food of exposure fo foe same chernioels in different
arias of fhe plant, The iwenly _ consolidated
plalititi"209 selected for trial worked tr siteferent
prema and heve prusented io evidenes that thoy
swerve, axpored to tho same Injory-produoing vheselo-
al mixturds, Beceune tho areas oF the plant tn vihiolk
the plaintitis worked wera ta diverse, the Pasko
‘Hannitis facility sontaine multiple work altos,

FIR. ML Ain, Reffuatory Ca, 1 Buster,
BE BW.2d S04, DITAR (Tex.AppeCorpes
Chelat} 1999, put. dented), QwensConm
ing Flaergles Cor, Marty 942 8,W.2d
7112, 717 (Pox AppeDallas 1997, 9 pat),

etd tabby, the cobbolldet $8 al atts

Page 8 of 11

‘Pago 7

clubne of workers fiom different selfodntained
sites in the pls ‘will lilcely mnduly projudive the
dofendants, Tuer oonfuston ls ely because the
twonty ifferent plalnttify Wit necasailly offer
proof of exposure te different sheratorls that o0~
purred in diffrent parta of the plant, lending to a
aplésr w