Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Joseph Alexander Anderson, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by G. Patterson Keahey , LAW OFFICES OF G PATTERSON KEAHEY & Kenneth D. Lougee , SIEGFRIED & JENSEN.
Arva Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by G. Patterson Keahey , LAW OFFICES OF G PATTERSON KEAHEY & James Wade Gent , THE GENT LAW FIRM.
Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Dan R. Larsen , DORSEY & WHITNEY & Karthik Nadesan , NADESAN BECK PC.
General Motors Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dan R. Larsen , DORSEY & WHITNEY & Karthik Nadesan , NADESAN BECK PC.
American Standard, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kamie F. Brown , RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER, Stewart O. Peay , SNELL & WILMER, Tracy H. Fowler , SNELL & WILMER & Scott A. DuBois , WRONA GORDON & DUBOIS.
Bondex International, Defendant, represented by Dennis H. Markusson , MARKUSSON GREEN & JARVIS & Timothy C. Houpt , JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & MCDONOUGH.
Borg Warner Corporation, Defendant, represented by Melinda A. Morgan , MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP.
Buffalo Pumps, Defendant, represented by Mary Price Birk , BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP & Patricia W. Christensen , PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS.
Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Katherine E. Venti , PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER & John P. Ball, Jr , PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER.
Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mary Price Birk , BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Patricia W. Christensen , PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS & Ronald L. Hellbusch , BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP.
Cleaver Brooks, Defendant, represented by Melinda A. Morgan , MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP.
Crane Co, Defendant, represented by Katherine E. Venti , PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER & John P. Ball, Jr , PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER.
Durabala Manufacturing, Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Hawkins , MORGAN MINNOCK RICE & JAMES.
Flowserve Corp, Defendant, represented by Barbara K. Berrett , BERRETT & HANNA LC, Casey K. McGarvey , EdiZONE LLC, Rebecca L. Hill , CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN PC, Scot A. Boyd , CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN PC, Stewart O. Peay , SNELL & WILMER, Tracy H. Fowler , SNELL & WILMER, Kamie F. Brown , RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER & Melinda A. Morgan , MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP.
Fluor Corporation, Defendant, represented by Patricia W. Christensen , PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS.
Foster Wheeler North America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mark J. Williams , PRICE PARKINSON & KERR PLLC.
Garlock Sealing Technologies, Defendant, represented by Clinton A. McAdams , J JOYCE & ASSOCIATES, Joseph J. Joyce , J JOYCE & ASSOCIATES & Ryan J. Schriever , MYLER INJURY.
Georgia Pacific Corporation, Defendant, represented by Katherine E. Venti , PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER & John P. Ball, Jr , PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Scot A. Boyd , CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN PC & Rebecca L. Hill , CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN PC.
Hamilton Materials, Defendant, represented by Melinda A. Morgan , MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP.
Henry Vogt Machine, Defendant, represented by Barbara K. Berrett , BERRETT & HANNA LC & Mark D. Taylor , LEWIS HANSEN WALDO PLESHE FLANDERS LLC.
Hill Brothers Chemical, Defendant, represented by Scot A. Boyd , CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN PC & Rebecca L. Hill , CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN PC.
Honeywell, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sara E. Bouley , ACTION LAW LLC & Tonn K. Petersen , PERKINS COIE LLP.
Industrial Supply, Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Hawkins , MORGAN MINNOCK RICE & JAMES.
Oakfabco, Defendant, represented by Gregory S. Roberts , RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER.
Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mary Price Birk , BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP & Patricia W. Christensen , PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS.
Sepco, Defendant, represented by Alan Scott Goldberg , SELMAN BREITMAN LLP, Mary Price Birk , BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Ollie M. Harton , HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSON & YOUNG LLP, Ronald L. Hellbusch , BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP & Patricia W. Christensen , PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS.
SPX Cooling Technologies, Defendant, represented by Melinda A. Morgan , MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP.
TH Agriculture & Nutrition, Defendant, represented by Gregory S. Roberts , RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER.
Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mary Price Birk , BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Patricia W. Christensen , PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS & Ronald L. Hellbusch , BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP.
Warren Pumps, Defendant, represented by Scot A. Boyd , CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN PC.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Stewart O. Peay , SNELL & WILMER, Tracy H. Fowler , SNELL & WILMER & Kamie F. Brown , RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER.
York International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dennis C. Ferguson , WILLIAMS & HUNT, Timothy J. Bywater , WILLIAMS & HUNT & Mark R. Anderson , BERRETT & HANNA LC.
Zurn Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scot A. Boyd , CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN PC & Rebecca L. Hill , CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN PC.
Hercules Inc, Defendant, represented by Katherine E. Venti , PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER & John P. Ball, Jr , PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER.
Utah Power & Light Company, Defendant, represented by Gregory S. Roberts , RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER & Rick L. Rose , RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER.
DaimlerChrysler, Defendant, represented by Scot A. Boyd , CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN PC & Rebecca L. Hill , CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN PC.
Goulds Pumps, Defendant, represented by H. Scott Jacobson, Jr. , STRONG & HANNI.
Copeland Corp, Interested Party, represented by Richard K. Glauser , SMITH & GLAUSER PC.
Kaiser Gypsum Company, Interested Party, represented by Kamie F. Brown , RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER, Stewart O. Peay , SNELL & WILMER & Tracy H. Fowler , SNELL & WILMER.
United States District Court, D. Utah.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION
TED STEWART, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Crane Co.'s Motion for Leave to File a Dispositive Motion and Defendant York International Corporation's ("York") Motion for Leave to File a Dispositive Motion. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny Defendants' Motions.
I. BACKGROUND
This matter was initially filed in state court by Joseph Alexander Anderson, Jr., and was removed to this Court on September 1, 2006. Plaintiff's complaint alleged that Mr. Anderson had been diagnosed with asbestos-caused Mesothelioma. Mr. Anderson died of Mesothelioma on June 7, 2008, and his wife and the executor of his estate, Arva Anderson, was substituted as Plaintiff. On October 20, 2006, the United States of America Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") issued Conditional Transfer Order 269,1 which transferred Plaintiff's case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "Pennsylvania Court").
While before the Pennsylvania Court, each of the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The Pennsylvania Court denied each of these motions in whole or in part in separate opinions on April 27, 2011.2 Defendant Crane Co. filed a motion for reconsideration before the Pennsylvania Court, and the Pennsylvania Court denied the motion on September 26, 2012.3
On that same day, the Pennsylvania Court issued a Suggestion of Remand, suggesting that the case be remanded to this Court because all discovery had been completed and the case was ready for trial.4 On October 12, 2012, a Clerk's Order of Conditional Remand was signed, remanding the case back to this Court for trial and severing all claims for punitive or exemplary damages.5
On November 28, 2012, Defendant York filed a Motion for Reconsideration and on December 3, 2012, Defendant Crane Co. filed a Renewed Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Clarification.6 The Court denied these motions on July 15, 2013.7 Defendants now seek leave to file a dispositive motion.
II. DISCUSSION
Crane Co. seeks permission to file a dispositive motion on the legal issue of "whether Crane Co. is legally responsible for asbestos-containing materials that it neither made nor sold, but which were used with its pumps and valves post-sale."8 The pending motion sets forth substantially the same argument that Crane Co. made to the Pennsylvania Court when it argued that it should not be held responsible for products "manufactured or supplied by other companies and used with Crane Co. valves post-sale,"9 which is known as the "bare metal" defense. The Pennsylvania Court found that it "need not consider the `bare metal' defense since Plaintiff has presented evidence that Crane Co. manufactured some asbestos-containing pumps. Moreover, Defendant has not cited to any Utah case recognizing the `bare metal' defense in the asbestos context."10
Crane Co. also made substantially the same argument before this Court when it sought "an order determining that it is not legally responsible or liable for asbestos-containing products it did not manufacture, supply, or otherwise introduce into the stream of commerce, but which were placed upon its metal valves and pumps by others post-sale."11 At that time, Crane Co. did not ask the Court to reconsider the MDL Court's April 27, 2011 Order, but insisted that it was merely asking for clarification of a legal issue.12 Crane Co., however, sought the same relief from this Court as it sought from the Pennsylvania Court and effectively requested the Court grant summary judgment.13 At that time, the Court determined,
to the extent that Crane Co. is asking the Court to reconsider the Pennsylvania Court's finding that there was a material issue of fact as to whether Crane Co. manufactured asbestos-containing pumps or valves, it is a second Motion to Reconsider. The Court will not engage in an attempt to define an area of Utah law that is not relevant to Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment, and the question of Crane Co.'s liability for products it did not manufacture, supply, or otherwise introduce into the stream of commerce is only relevant if the Court does overturn the Pennsylvania Court's determination that there is a material issue of fact around the manufacture, supply, or introduction into the stream of commerce of asbestos-containing products. As the Pennsylvania Court has already fully considered Defendant's Motion to Reconsider, this Court need not do so again.14
In its Motion for Leave to File a Dispositive Motion Crane Co. again makes the same argument it made previously to the Pennsylvania Court and this Court. For the same reasons previously explained by the Court in its Memorandum Decision and Order Denying Defendants' Motions for Reconsideration and Clarification, Defendant Crane Co.'s Motion will be denied.
Defendant York adopts as its own Crane Co.'s Motion for Leave to File a Dispositive Motion and incorporates by reference the same relief sought.15 For the same reasons set forth above, York's Motion will also be denied.
III. CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant Crane Co.'s Motion for Leave to File a Dispositive Motion (Docket No. 400) is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that Defendant York International Corporation's Motion for Leave to File a Dispositive Motion (Docket No. 437) is DENIED.
Comment
User Comments