Jeffrey et al v. Foster Wheeler LLC (FKA Foster Wheeler Corporation) et al

Filing 30

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Judge 03/02/2015 granting 8 , 10 , and 15 Motions to Dismiss. Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED and the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Dkt. Nos. 8, 10, 15. Any amended complaint shall be filed within 30 days of this order. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

BILLY JEFFREY, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-05585-WHO

Plaintiffs,
7
v.
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

FOSTER WHEELER LLC (FKA FOSTER
WHEELER CORPORATION),
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC.
(FKA SQUARE D COMPANY), EATON
CORPORATION, ROCKWELL
AUTOMATION, INC.,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
Re: Dkt. Nos. 8, 10, 15

Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Billy and Diana Jeffrey (husband and wife) allege that Mr. Jeffrey was injured
from exposure to defendants’ asbestos-containing products. They have not pleaded any facts
regarding the circumstances of their exposure or any basis for concluding that Mr. Jeffrey was
exposed to defendants’ products. Accordingly, I GRANT defendants’ motions to dismiss the
complaint with leave to amend.
BACKGROUND
Billy Jeffrey alleges that he has sustained asbestos-related lung injuries as a result of his
exposure to asbestos-containing products “manufactured, distributed, and/or sold” by defendants
Foster Wheeler LLC, Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Eaton Corporation, and Rockwell
Automation, Inc. Compl. ¶ 4 [Dkt. No. 1]. He alleges that defendants’ asbestos-containing
products were “supplied to, installed and/or maintained” by defendants at Mr. Jeffrey’s worksites
“over a period of years.” Id. The complaint identifies the following worksites and dates where
Mr. Jeffrey was allegedly exposed to defendants’ asbestos-containing products:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Compl. ¶ 15, Ex. A. Mr. Jeffrey asserts causes of action against defendants for negligence and

18

products liability. Id. ¶¶ 10-35.
Diana Jeffrey, Billy Jeffrey’s wife, alleges that Mr. Jeffrey “has been unable to perform the

19
20

necessary duties as a spouse and the work and service usually performed in the care, maintenance

21

and management of the family home” as a result his asbestos-related lung injuries. Compl. ¶ 38.

22

Ms. Jeffrey asserts a cause of action against defendants for loss of consortium. Id. ¶ 36-40.

23

Defendants Schneider Electric, Rockwell Automation, and Eaton Corporation

24

(collectively, “defendants”) move to dismiss the Jeffreys’ complaint for failure to state a claim.1

25

Dkt. Nos. 8 (Schneider Electric motion to dismiss), 10 (Rockwell Automation motion to dismiss),

26

15 (Eaton Corporation motion to dismiss). I heard argument on February 25, 2015.

27
28

1

Defendant Foster Wheeler filed an answer to the complaint. Dkt. No. 7.
2

DISCUSSION

1

Plaintiffs must plead facts sufficient to raise “plausible grounds” for relief.2 Bell Atl. Corp.

2
3

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). A plaintiff in an asbestos suit “cannot prevail against a

4

defendant without evidence that the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-containing materials

5

manufactured or furnished by the defendant with enough frequency and regularity as to show a

6

reasonable medical probability that this exposure was a factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries.”

7

Weber v. John Crane, Inc., 143 Cal. App. 4th 1433, 1438 (2006).
Defendants argue that plaintiffs fail to state a claim because the complaint does not identify

8
9

any specific asbestos-containing products of the defendants to which Mr. Jeffrey was allegedly
exposed, the circumstances of the exposure, or that any exposure was sufficient to cause asbestos-

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

related lung injuries. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 8 at 3; Dkt. No. 10-1 at 2; Dkt. No. 15-1 at 1-2. Plaintiffs

12

respond that defendants “know full well their line of asbestos-containing electrical products that

13

are at issue here; they have answered and defended many a complaint based on exposure to

14

asbestos as a result of work with and around these products. They can do so here.” Dkt. No. 24 at

15

2.3 Plaintiffs’ likewise state that “Defendants know their business as a manufacturers of asbestos-

16

containing products – and admit as such in state-court interrogatory responses. They are sued here

17

as they have been in a multitude of other cases involving plaintiffs’ counsel.” Id. at 6.
I assume that plaintiffs have some basis for alleging that Mr. Jeffrey was exposed to these

18
19

particular defendants’ asbestos-containing products at these particular jobsites. That basis is not

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiffs cite Gilligan v. Jamco Develop. Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9th Cir. 1997) for the
proposition that “plaintiffs only need allege factual allegations which support the required
elements of a complaint, not make out a prima facie case.” Dkt. No. 24 at 7. Gilligan does not
save plaintiffs’ complaint. Gilligan was decided years before Iqbal and Twombly and does not
control over the pleading standards articulated in those cases. See, e.g. Sparks v. S. Kitsap Sch.
Dist., 2014 WL 1047217, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 18, 2014) (Gilligan was “decided years before
Iqbal and Twombly and [is] entirely inapplicable now”). Gilligan is also substantively inapposite
as it involved violations of the Fair Housing Act and plaintiffs there pleaded plausible grounds for
relief.
3

Plaintiffs filed one joint opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss. Dkt. No. 24. Defendants
are encouraged to likewise file joint motions where appropriate. The three motions to dismiss at
issue here are substantially duplicative and could have been submitted in one joint motion.
3

1

evident from the complaint as presently drafted. Plaintiffs’ obligation to plead plausible claims is

2

not lessened by their counsel’s prior experience litigating against these defendants. The complaint

3

does not allege any basis for concluding that defendants provided asbestos-containing products to

4

Mr. Jeffrey’s jobsites, much less the circumstances of Mr. Jeffrey’s exposure to those products.

5

Mr. Jeffrey’s alleged exposure occurred 40 to 50 years ago and he is unlikely to have

6

detailed knowledge of defendants’ products and operations, such as the brand names of the

7

specific products at issue. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint need not include precise details of the

8

facts underlying their claims. In order to plead plausible claims, plaintiffs can and should allege

9

the circumstances of Mr. Jeffrey’s exposure, such as the type of work he was performing and why
that work may have exposed him to defendants’ products, as well as any other material facts of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

which they are aware that justify the defendants’ potential liability in this case.
CONCLUSION

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED and the complaint is dismissed with leave
to amend. Dkt. Nos. 8, 10, 15. Any amended complaint shall be filed within 30 days of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 2, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4