Lyman et al v. Asbestos Defendants (B*P) et al

Filing 134

ORDER GRANTING AND SEVERING DEFENDANT MONTELLO INC.'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER TO ASSERT CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT UNION CARBIDE by Hon. William H. Orrick re 111 Motion for Leave to File. Montello is granted leave to amend its a nswer to assert a cross-claim for indemnification against Union Carbide. The trial of the indemnification issue is severed and a Case Management Conference is set for August 5, 2014, at 2:00 p.m. to discuss an appropriate schedule for discovery and trial. On or before July 29, 2014, the defendants shall file a Joint Case Management Statement that includes a proposed case management schedule. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT F. LYMAN, et al., Case No. 07-cv-04240-WHO Plaintiffs, 8 v. 9 10 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 ORDER GRANTING AND SEVERING DEFENDANT MONTELLO INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER TO ASSERT CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT UNION CARBIDE Re: Dkt. No. 111 12 13 More than seven years after making its first appearance in this case, and less than a month 14 before trial of the claims of the heirs of Robert Lyman, defendant Montello, Inc., moved to amend 15 its answer so that it could assert an indemnity claim against co-defendant Union Carbide 16 Corporation. This matter is capable of resolution without oral argument and the hearing set for 17 June 4, 2014, is VACATED. 18 There are potentially valid grounds for Montello to seek indemnification based on a written 19 agreement with Union Carbide. But until this motion was filed on May 20, 2014, nothing in 20 Montello’s pleadings indicated that it would be pursuing a cross-claim against Union Carbide. 21 Montello contends that it acted promptly once this case was set for trial, but that is not the test for 22 timeliness. 23 Fairness dictates that Union Carbide be given the opportunity to conduct discovery and 24 consider its litigation and trial strategy prior to the presentation of the indemnification issue for 25 decision. It is inappropriate at this late date to inject a fight between the co-defendants over 26 indemnification into the trial of Mr. Lyman’s heirs’ claims for negligence and products liability 27 arising from Mr. Lyman’s alleged exposure to asbestos. 28 Accordingly, I GRANT Montello, Inc., leave to amend its answer to assert a cross-claim 1 for indemnification against Union Carbide. I SEVER trial of the indemnification issue and set a 2 Case Management Conference for August 5, 2014, at 2:00 p.m. to discuss an appropriate schedule 3 for discovery and trial. On or before July 29, 2014, the defendants shall file a Joint Case 4 Management Statement that includes a proposed case management schedule. 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 2, 2014 ______________________________________ WILLIAM H. ORRICK United States District Judge 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?