Case Summaries
[06/23] Thach v. Tiger Corp.
In a negligence, products liability, and breach of warranty action against the Japanese manufacturer of a rice cooker which allegedly caused a fire at plaintiffs' home, judgment on the pleadings for defendant is affirmed where plaintiffs had failed to serve defendant within South Dakota's three-year statute of limitations, because delivery of plaintiffs' request for service to the Japanese Foreign Affairs Ministry on either December 7 or 19 did not toll the limitations period under S.D. Stat. 15-2-31 before its expiration on December 11, 2007.
[06/23] Hendrix v. Evenflo Co.
In an action alleging that plaintiff's son sustained traumatic brain injuries when a child restraint system manufactured by defendant malfunctioned during a minor traffic accident, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding plaintiff's expert testimony based on the insufficient reliability of that testimony under Daubert.
[06/15] Mee Indus. v. Dow Chem. Co.
In a malicious prosecution suit based on an underlying, allegedly meritless patent infringement action, partial judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) sufficient evidence supported the jury's conclusions that Dow filed the patent infringement suit without the requisite probable cause and did not rely in good faith on the advice of counsel; 2) the evidence was not sufficient to meet the clear and convincing standard required for an award of punitive damages; and 3) the district court did not err in excluding plaintiff's loss of goodwill theory of damages.
[06/10] Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co.
In a licensed patent attorney's qui tam action under 35 U.S.C. section 292 alleging that defendant had falsely marked its products with expired patent numbers for the purpose of deceiving the public, district court's judgment is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) summary judgment of no liability in favor of defendant was proper as false marking, combined with knowledge of the falsity, merely creates a rebuttable presumption of intent to deceive the public, and here, defendant provided credible evidence that its purpose was not to deceive the public with either the expired patent markings or the "may be covered" language, and plaintiff raised no genuine issue of material fact showing otherwise; and 2) district court's determination on the meaning of the word "offense," in holding that defendant could have committed at most three offenses is vacated as Forest Group, 590 F.3d 1295 holds that every false marked product constitutes an "offense" under section 292.
[06/09] Tindle v. Pulte Home Corp.
In plaintiff's suit against the builder of his new home for sustaining serious injuries when his foot and leg sank into a hole concealed underneath the sod in the backyard, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) summary judgment on plaintiff's vendor liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts section 353 claim was properly granted because plaintiff knew or had reason to know the condition and risk involved; and 2) plaintiff's claim also fails because he has failed to produce evidence that defendant knew or had reason to know of the dangerous condition at the time of the sale.
[06/08] El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. US
In an action by the owners of a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant against the U.S. for unjustifiably destroying the plant, failing to compensate plaintiffs for its destruction, and defaming them by asserting they had ties to Osama bin Laden, dismissal of the action is affirmed where the political question doctrine barred plaintiffs' claims.
[06/07] Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp.
In two putative class actions against multiple defendants, alleging negligence in connection with beryllium exposure and seeking a medical monitoring trust fund based on their increased risk of developing chronic beryllium disease (CBD), a grant of defendants' motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) the plaintiff cannot prevail because under Pohl, the threshold increase in risk to establish a medical monitoring claim under Redland Soccer remains at sensitization, a point along the exposure-to-disease continuum that plaintiff has not reached; 2) plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that, as a proximate result of the exposure, he has a significantly increased risk of contracting CBD; 3) because the underlying assertions in each action are the same, and because plaintiff could have brought a medical monitoring claim in the prior suit, the district court properly granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings based on claim preclusion; and 4) district court properly granted defendant-engineering consultants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
[06/07] In re: Sherwin-Williams, Co.
A defendant's petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that a district judge be recused from presiding over four cases against manufacturers of white lead carbonate pigments is denied as the petitioner has not established that a law review article co-written by the judge would make a reasonable, thoughtful, and well-informed observer question his impartiality.
[05/27] Martinez v. Ford Motor Co.
In an action for strict and negligent product liability, brought by two survivors and the heirs and estates of two decedents from a car crash in Mexico of a Ford vehicle that had been purchased in San Diego, trial court's dismissal of the complaint for forum non conveniens is reversed and remanded as defendants used a California court for discovery they could not have obtained in Mexico to get evidence unrelated to their forum non conveniens motion, and having availed themselves of the advantages of California courts to the prejudice of plaintiffs, defendants cannot now be heard to say the state's courts are inconvenient.
[05/24] Barrett v. Rhodia, Inc.
In an action alleging that plaintiff suffered permanent injury while working with a chemical manufactured by defendant, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where the district court did not err in excluding plaintiff's expert witnesses because they were not qualified to testify about the source and concentration of plaintiff's hydrogen sulfide exposure.
[05/20] Whitmire v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.
In plaintiffs' suit against defendants for negligence and strict liability alleging to exposure to asbestos, trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed as plaintiffs failed to establish a triable issue of fact regarding whether the husband was exposed to asbestos for which defendant was liable.
[05/20] Pella Corp. v. Saltzman
In plaintiffs' suit against a window manufacturer, alleging that defendant committed consumer fraud by not publicly declaring a design defect that caused wood casing the windows to rot, defendant's Rule 23(f) appeal is granted and the district court's certification of two classes of plaintiffs affirmed as, although consumer fraud class actions present challenges that a district court must carefully consider, certification is appropriate under the circumstance of this case.
[05/17] Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore
In plaintiff's action for defamation and related claims against an attorney and a law firm, arising from an advertisement placed by the defendants addressing owners of wood decks that they may have a claim against plaintiff and other manufacturers of certain galvanized screws, dismissal of the entire complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute is affirmed as plaintiff's expansive construction of the commercial speech exemption is rejected, and thus, the complaint was not exempted from the anti-SLAPP statute by section 425.1(c)(1). The court also establishes that the burden of proof as to the applicability of the "commercial speech" exemption of the anti-SLAPP statute falls on the party seeking the benefit of it.
[05/13] Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
In plaintiff's wrongful death action against cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris arising from the death of her husband from lung cancer, Court of Appeal's affirmance of trial court's order sustaining defendant's demurrer without leave to amend is affirmed as plaintiff's wrongful death action involves the same primary right and breach as her former loss of consortium action, and thus, the doctrine of res judicata bars plaintiff's wrongful death action.
[05/11] Adams v. Genie Indus., Inc.
In an action for injuries sustained when plaintiff fell from a personnel lift designed, manufactured and sold by defendant, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff produced enough evidence for a jury to find that defendant's product -- a personnel lift without interlocked outriggers -- was "not reasonably safe"; and 2) the trial court erred in submitting to the jury the question of whether defendant's post-sale conduct -- its conduct between 1986, when it sold the product, and 1997, when plaintiff was injured -- was negligent, but the error was harmless.
[04/27] Chevron USA Inc. v. Aker Maritime Inc.
In an action by Chevron to recover its costs resulting from the replacement of failed bolts in an oil production facility, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find defendant liable as an apparent manufacturer. However, the judgment is vacated in part where the cost of repairing a spar in the facility was not an "economic loss" under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, and thus plaintiff was not entitled to attorney's fees.
[04/26] Communities for a Better Env't v. City of Richmond
In plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandate against a city and Chevron, claiming that an environmental review of a new construction project was flawed because the EIR failed to disclose, analyze and mitigate all the potential environmental impacts of the project, trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) trial court correctly concluded that the EIR is inadequate as a matter of law because it does not adequately address the issue of whether the project includes any equipment changes that would facilitate the future processing of heavier crudes at the refinery; 2) trial court correctly concluded that the city's decision to approve the project, after giving the city council final approval over a mitigation plan that Chevron formulates a year later outside the EIR process, does not satisfy CEQA's requirements; and 3) trial court's finding that the city improperly "piece-mealed" the project by failing to include and analyze the hydrogen pipeline as part of the project is reversed as there was no improper segmentation of a larger project here.
[04/07] American Honda Motor Co. v. Allen
In a class action alleging that a Honda motorcycle had a design defect that prevented the adequate dampening of "wobble," a grant of plaintiff's motion for class certification is vacated where: 1) the district court must perform a full Daubert analysis before certifying a class if the situation warrants; and 2) the district court never actually reached a conclusion about whether plaintiffs' expert report was reliable enough to support plaintiffs' class certification request.
[04/06] Guinn v. AstraZeneca Pharms. LLP
In an action claiming that plaintiff's use of defendant's prescription drug Seroquel caused her to develop diabetes, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that plaintiff's expert's differential diagnosis was unreliable under Daubert because she failed to adequately consider possible alternative causes of plaintiff's weight gain and diabetes; and 2) plaintiff identified no evidence of specific causation other than the expert's testimony.
[04/05] ACE Am. Ins. Co. v. RC2 Corp., Inc.
In a toy manufacturer's suit against its insurer seeking declaratory relief and damages, district court's conclusion that the insurer had a duty to defend the insured against class action lawsuits brought against it for products sold and used exclusively in the United States but manufactured in China is reversed as, under Illinois law, the policies unambiguously excluded coverage for the alleged harm caused by exposure to defective products that occurred in the United States, regardless of where antecedent negligence took place.
Back to Main
