Gerald Livingston et al v. 3M Company et al

Filing 456

JUDGMENT as to Eaton Corporation by Judge Willian G. Young 428 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Defendant Eaton's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted; 2. Judgment shall be entered forthwith in favor of defendant Eaton and against plaintiffs Patricia Livingston, et al.; and3. Defendant Eaton, as the prevailing party on the Complaint, shall recoverits costs against plaintiffs. SEE DOCUMENT FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. (jre)

1
2
3
4
5
6

ERROR! MAIN DOCUMENT ONLY.LAW OFFICES OF
PRINDLE, AMARO, GOETZ, HILLYARD, BARNES & REINHOLTZ

LLP

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PATRICIA ANN LIVINGSTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

3M COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

15

CASE NO. 2:12-cv-01220-WGY-DTB
JUDGMENT GRANTING DEFENDANT
EATON CORPORATION,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSORIN-INTEREST TO CUTLER-HAMMER,
INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

16
17
18
19
20

Having read and considered all papers filed in support of and in opposition to
the motion for summary judgment of defendant Eaton Corporation, individually and
as successor-in-interest to Cutler-Hammer, Inc. (“Eaton/Cutler-Hammer”), all

21

admissible evidence filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, and arguments

22

of counsel, the Court finds that:

23

1.

There is no genuine issue of material fact that decedent Gerald

24

Livingston (“Mr. Livingston”) was exposed to asbestos-containing products

25

manufactured, supplied, distributed or sold by Eaton/Cutler-Hammer;

26
27
28

1

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT GRANTING DEFENDANT EATON CORPORATION,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO CUTLER-HAMMER,
INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

2.

There is no admissible evidence that Mr. Livingston was exposed to

2

asbestos fibers released from any Eaton/Cutler-Hammer product in a manner that

3

constituted a “substantial factor” in causing Mr. Livingston’s disease; and

4

3.

5

Good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND

6

ERROR! MAIN DOCUMENT ONLY.LAW OFFICES OF
PRINDLE, AMARO, GOETZ, HILLYARD, BARNES & REINHOLTZ

LLP

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Defendant Eaton is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

Defendant Eaton’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted;

2.

Judgment shall be entered forthwith in favor of defendant Eaton and

against plaintiffs Patricia Livingston, et al.; and
3.

Defendant Eaton, as the prevailing party on the Complaint, shall recover

its costs against plaintiffs.
DATED: October 14, 2015

By: /s/ William G. Young
Judge William G. Young

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT GRANTING DEFENDANT EATON CORPORATION,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO CUTLER-HAMMER,
INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT