Clarence FRANCOIS, Plaintiff,
v.
RAYBESTOS-MANHATTAN, INC., et al., Defendants.
United States District Court, N.D. California.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
December 1, 1983.
December 1, 1983.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Martin N. Glickfeld, Cartwright, Sucherman, Slobodin & Fowler, Inc., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff Clarence Francois.
Dennis K. Ames, Christopher Cannon, La Follette, Johnson, Schroeter & DeHaas, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant The Flintkote Co.
Richard B. Evans, Gudmundson, Siggins & Stone, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
John J. Murray, Jerome P. Harrison, Law Offices of John J. Murray, Redwood City, Cal., for defendant U.S. Gypsum Co.
Elizabeth Williams, Winingham, Roberts, Rogie & Fama, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.
Brian W. Aherne, Dennis K. Ames, La Follette, Johnson, Schroeter & DeHaas, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant Standard Insulations, Inc.
Mark L. Shea, Popelka, Allard, McCowan & Jones, San Jose, Cal., for defendant Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
Anthony Griffin, St. Clair, Zappettini, McFetridge & Griffin, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Nicolet, Inc.
Mark T. Pallis, Berry & Berry, Oakland, Cal., for defendant Celotex Corp.
Richard S. Bishop, Bishop, Barry, Howe & Reid, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant PPG Industries, Inc.
Mark L. Cederborg, Mullally & Cederborg, Oakland, Cal., for defendants Keene Corp. and Keene Bldg. Products Corp.
James N. Penrod, Delbert C. Gee, Hassard, Bonnington, Rogers & Huber, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Pittsburgh Corning Corp.
John F. Van de Poel, Edward M. Price, Van De Poel, Strickland & Haapala, Oakland, Cal., for defendant ACands, Inc.
William A. Levin, Law Offices of Ronald E. Hothem, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Fibreboard Corp.
Charles Negley, Douglas Wah, Maloney, Chase, Fisher & Hurst, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.
United States District Court, N.D. California.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
PECKHAM, Chief Judge.
SUMMARY
The defendants in this asbestos action have filed three motions to dismiss: (1) a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; and (3) a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The first two motions (lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim) have been made by various defendants,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
