LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION et al., Petitioners,
v.
The SUPERIOR COURT of San Bernardino County, Respondent;
Roslyn Carrillo et al., Real Parties in Interest.
Baumac Corporation, Petitioner,
v.
The Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Respondent;
Roslyn Carrillo, Real Party in Interest.
Petro-Tex Chemical Corporation et al., Petitioners,
v.
The Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Respondent;
Roslyn Carrillo et al., Real Parties in Interest.
Supreme Court of California.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
March 3, 2003.
March 3, 2003.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Holme, Roberts & Owen, Linnea Brown, Denver, CO; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Robert S. Warren, Los Angeles, Robert W. Loewen, Irvine, and Daniel S. Floyd, Los Angeles, for Petitioners Lockheed Martin Corporation and Highland Supply Corporation.
Payne & Fears, David Sweet, Alan G. Ross, Irvine; Law Offices of Terry Bridges and Terry Bridges, Riverside, for Petitioner Highland Supply Company.
Bowman & Brooke, Anthony S. Thomas, Torrance; Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, John D. Dwyer, Steven B. Katz, Los Angeles, and Carrie L. Daughters, for Petitioner FMC Corporation.
Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, David F. Wood, Ann G. Zuckerman, James C. MacDonald, Los Angeles; Brunick, Alvarez & Battesby and Leland P. McElhaney, San Bernardino, for Petitioner Baumac Corporation.
Zevnik Horton Guibord McGovern Palmer & Fognani, John D. Fognani, Michael John Miguel and K. Eric Adair, Los Angeles, for Petitioners Petro-Tex Chemical Corporation and El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Co.
Nossman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott and Patrick J. Richard, San Francisco, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
Hugh F. Young, Jr., and Harvey M. Grossman, Chicago, IL, for The Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
Atlantic Legal Foundation and Martin S. Kaufman for Ronald E. Gots, Leonard Hamilton, Ronald Hart, Clark W. Heath, Michael Gough, A. Alan Moghissi, Rodney W. Nichols, Frederick Seitz, Barry H. Smith, James Wilson and Richard Wilson as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
Crowell & Moring, Victor E. Schwartz and Luther Zeigler, Washington, Dist. of Columbia, for The Coalition for Asbestos Justice, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
Horvitz & Levy, David M. Axelrad, Lisa Perrochet and Mary-Christine Sungaila, Encino, for American Chemistry Council, Chemical Industry Council of California, ExxonMobil Corporation and Union Oil Company of California as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold and Frederick D. Baker, San Francisco, for Defense Research Institute as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
Spriggs & Hollingsworth, Donald W. Fowler, Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Marc S. Mayerson; National Chamber Litigation Center and Robin S. Conrad, Washington, Dist. of Columbia, for United States Chamber of Commerce as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
Robie & Matthai, Pamela E. Dunn, Pasadena, and Natalie A. Kouyoumdjian, Los Angeles, for State Farm General Insurance Company and United Services Automobile Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May, James C. Martin, Michael K. Brown; Daniel J. Popeo and Paul D. Kamenar, Washington, Dist. of Columbia, for Washington Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners Lockheed Martin Corporation and Highland Supply Company.
No appearance for Respondent.
Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, Walter J. Lack, Gary A. Praglin, Richard P. Kinnan, Los Angeles; Masry & Vititoe, Edward S. Masry, Westlake Village; Girardi & Keese, Thomas V. Girardi, Los Angeles, Howard B. Miller, El Segundo; Ward & Ward and Alexandra S. Ward, San Bernardino, for Real Parties in Interest.
Supreme Court of California.
WERDEGAR, J.
In this action for medical monitoring of the residents of a geographic area affected by defendants' toxic chemical discharge, the question before us is whether plaintiffs, in moving for class certification, have met their burden of demonstrating that common issues of law and fact predominate. We conclude they have not. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
BACKGROUND
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.
