Dashtizadeh v. Honeywell International Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 6/12/2015. (jnls, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MOHAMED R. DASHTIZADEH
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Civil No. – JFM-14-553
Mohamed R. Dashtizadeh has brought this action against Honeywell International, Inc.
(the successor to Bendix Corporation) and Earl’s Discount Auto Parts, Inc.1
Plaintiff originally asserted a variety of claims against defendants. The only claims that
he is now pursuing are those for strict liability and negligence. Discovery has been completed,
and defendants have moved for summary judgment. Those motions will be granted.
There are two reasons that defendants’ motions are clearly well-founded.2
First, to the extent that the brakes to which plaintiff was exposed manufactured by
Bendix and sold by Earl’s contained asbestos. The brakes did not give rise to any viable claim
because they contained a warning about the dangers of asbestos that fully complied with the
applicable OSHAA requirements. See Kline v. ABCO Eng’g Corp., 991 F. Supp. 747, 750 (D.
Md. 1997); Lightolier v. Hoon, 387 Md. 539, 557, 876 A.2d 100, 111 (2005).
Second, plaintiff cannot establish (by direct or circumstantial evidence) that brakes
manufactured by Bendix and sold by Earl’s constituted “a substantial factor” to his asbestosis. It
Plaintiff also named as defendant Borgwarner Morse Tec., Inc. and Advanced Auto Parts, LLC as defendants.
Plaintiff dismisses claims against both of these defendants. They remain only as cross-defendants. In light of the
fact that I am granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment, the cross-claims are moot.
In light of my disposition of the case, I need not rule the sealed container defense asserted by Earl’s.
is undisputed that by the time that plaintiff was exposed to any such brakes Bendix manufactured
brakes, some of which contained asbestos and some of which did not. Plaintiff has presented
absolutely no evidence that the brakes manufactured by Bendix and sold by Earl’s contains
A separate order granting defendants’ motions and entering judgment on their behalf is
being entered herewith.
Date: June 12, 2015
J. Frederick Motz
United States District Judge
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?