Walashek, et al v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al

Filing 275

ORDER Granting Crane Co.'s 210 Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 7/23/2015. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

7

GAIL ELIZABETH WALASHEK,
Individually and as successor-ininterest to THE ESTATE OF
MICHAEL WALASHEK and THE
ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER
LINDEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8

v.

9

ASBESTOS CORPORATION
LIMITED, et al.,
Defendants.

5
6

10

Case No.: 14cv1567 BTM(BGS)
ORDER GRANTING CRANE
CO.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

11
12

On May 27, 2015, Crane Co. filed a motion for summary judgment against

13

Plaintiffs. On June 29, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition to Crane

14

Co.’s motion.

15

On June 17, 2014, Plaintiffs commenced this wrongful death and survival

16

action in state court. The Complaint alleges that Michael Walshek’s exposure to

17

asbestos and asbestos-containing products while he was employed at the National

18

Steel & Shipbuilding Co., resulted in severe and permanent injury and ultimately

19

death. On June 27, 2014, this action was removed to federal court.

20
1
14cv1567 BTM(BGS)

1

Crane Co. moves for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiffs cannot

2

show that the decedent was exposed to asbestos released from a product for

3

which Crane Co. is legally responsible. In support of its motion, Crane Co. points

4

to Plaintiffs’ discovery responses.

5

interrogatories and document requests, Plaintiffs failed to identify any specific

6

documents supporting Plaintiffs’ contention that Mr. Walashek was exposed to

7

asbestos-containing products for which Crane Co. is legally responsible. (Exs. B-

8

E.)

When responding to Crane Co.’s special

9

When asked to identify persons with knowledge of Mr. Walashek’s exposure

10

to asbestos from Crane Co. products, Plaintiffs identified Jim Doud, Ron Gray,

11

Frank Walashek, “witnesses being identified in Plaintiffs’ discovery and

12

investigation,” Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, and Crane Co.’s Person Most

13

Knowledgeable and/or corporate representatives and/or employees/former

14

employees. (Resp. to Special Interrogatory No. 2 (Ex. D).) However, Crane Co.

15

deposed Mr. Doud, Mr. Gray, and Mr. Frank Walashek, and none of these

16

witnesses provided evidence that Mr. Walashek encountered any asbestos-

17

containing material made, sold, or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce

18

by Crane Co. (Exs. 7, 8, 9.)

19

Crane Co. has satisfied its initial burden of production on summary judgment

20

by showing that Plaintiffs have insufficient evidence of an essential element of their
2
14cv1567 BTM(BGS)

1

case – i.e., that Mr. Walashek was exposed to Crane Co.’s asbestos-containing

2

product. Therefore, the burden shifts to Plaintiffs, who must produce enough

3

evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

4

477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence in opposition

5

to the motion and have instead filed a notice of non-opposition.

6

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Crane Co.’s motion for summary judgment

7

[Doc. 210] against Plaintiffs.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: July 23, 2015

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
3
14cv1567 BTM(BGS)