Placeholder canvas
Date: July 9, 2018

Double Victory for Clients in Los Angeles Superior Court

by foleyandmansfield
Date: July 9, 2018
by foleyandmansfield

Double Victory for Clients in Los Angeles Superior Court

Placeholder canvas

Foley & Mansfield scores a double victory in Department 15 of the Los Angeles Superior Court on June 27, 2018, winning summary judgment for two different clients on the same day before the newly installed Asbestos Judge Brian Currey.

The significance of these victories go beyond just the wins for our respective clients – the motions were not typical “no-ID” type motions but rather they were contested on the basis that the ID was insufficient and that, upon review of all the evidence, Plaintiffs could not establish any cause of action against either client. Furthermore, the issue of whether client “close-out” questions were necessary to win summary judgment was also successfully litigated.

The case involved Decedent’s alleged exposure to transite pipe through his work as a career pipe layer. One client, a fiber supplier, and the other a distributor of CertainTeed, Johns Manville and JM Manufacturing asbestos cement pipe. In both motions the Court ruled that Defendants had successfully shifted the burden to Plaintiffs, who then must establish a dispute of material fact. In California, the moving party has the initial burden of proof showing that the Plaintiffs have no case and no potential that they would have a case at trial; once that burden is met, it shifts to the Plaintiffs to demonstrate that there is evidence sufficient to prove their case at trial.  The Court further found that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden by showing a triable issue of material fact.

Defendants argued, and the Court agreed, that not only had Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to establish causation, but based on a review of all the evidence, it would be impossible for Plaintiffs to do so at trial. 

Critically, the Court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that the case of Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, required the Defendant to question the witness regarding the specific name of its client, a supplier, when the witness already categorically denied having further information on the topic at issue. Judge Currey believes that if the witness has denied any other knowledge of any tortfeasors other than those he or she recalls, there is no requirement that the specific name of the other potential tortfeasors be mentioned to refresh the witnesses’ recollection. Notably, Judge Currey characterized Plaintiffs’ argument that this is the rule of Scheiding as “an absurdity”.

Because California rejects the federal Celotex standard, which permits the moving party to simply point out gaps in the evidentiary record through argument, it is more difficult to win a motion for summary judgment here than in most all other states and in federal court.  A moving defendant must come forward with actual evidence to shift the burden.  Even then, the Code of Civil Procedure’s timing requirements and case law favor plaintiffs in their quest to create a dispute of material fact, making victories for moving defendants all the more rare.

The case was argued by M. Amadea Groseclose and Angela V. Sayre, on behalf of their respective clients.

 M. Amadea Groseclose and Angela V. Sayre

Florida Supreme Court Ruling Upends “Marriage Before Injury” Common Law Understanding of Spousal Recovery in Wrongful Death Cases

The Florida Supreme Court has upended a longstanding common law understanding of spousal recovery in wrongful death cases. In a recent decision, the Florida Supreme Court held that a spouse who married a decedent after the onset of the injury that caused decedent’s death is in fact a “surviving spouse” […]

LEARN MORE

Thermonuclear Verdicts on the Rise According to Recent Study

Marathon Strategies published a study regarding the rise in the number of “nuclear verdicts”—those with verdicts surpassing $10 million in damages—in the United States in 2023 and termed a new phrase– “thermonuclear verdicts.” The number of cases with nuclear verdicts has increased in 2023 by 27% from 2022, a 15-year […]

LEARN MORE

EPA’s Final Rule to Reduce Methane and Other Pollution from Oil and Natural Gas Operations

In November 2021, pursuant to the Biden Administration’s “U.S. Methane Emissions Reduction Plan” and under the terms of the Inflation Reduction Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published a proposed rule intended to mitigate climate-destabilizing pollution and protect human health by reducing greenhouse gases, including methane, and volatile organic compound […]

LEARN MORE