jayme c. long - american conference institute · 26 james kaddo van nuys i 6230 sylmar avenue, van...
TRANSCRIPT
mckennalong.commckennalong.com
805073875
Jayme C. LongMcKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
ACI Asbestos Conference,
June 23-24: State of the Market, California
805073875
Introduction
2
• Los Angeles trial judge system update
• Coordination update
• New CMOs
• Filing trends
• Mandatory settlement conferences
• Verdicts
• Federal Court update
• Deposition limits
• Bankruptcy Trust Claims
• New Case Law and Issues on Appeal
805073875
• All personal injury and wrongful death PI cases go to a panel of trial
judges (not specific to asbestos)
• Trials sent to Stanley Mosk and Central Civil (downtown LA) and
now surrounding areas (Santa Monica, Pomona, Van Nuys,
Chatsworth, Torrance, Long Beach)
• Trial judge assigned on first day of trial
• No case management by trial judge
SoCA: Trial Judge System
3
805073875
• Pros and cons
– Uncertainty
– Judges new to the litigation
– Need to have your challenges ready (20 minutes to decide)
– Travel time, “off-site” location
– Different jury pools
– Verdict trends
SoCA: Trial Judge System (cont’d)
4
805073875
Los Angeles Superior Court Civil Trial Court Judicial
Officers (as of February 17, 2015)
5
Judicial Officer Courthouse Dept. Address
1 Lia Martin Central Civil West 315 600 S. Commonwealth, Los Angeles 90005
2 John J. Kralik Central Civil West 316 600 S. Commonwealth, Los Angeles 90005
3 Benny C. Osorio Chatsworth F44 9425 Penfield Avenue, Chatsworth 91311
4 Randy Rhodes Chatsworth F50 9425 Penfield Avenue, Chatsworth 91311
5 Roy Paul Governor Deukmejian S09 275 Magnolia, Long Beach 90802
6 Patrick T. Madden Governor Deukmejian S28 275 Magnolia, Long Beach 90802
7 Peter J. Mirich Governor Deukmejian S29 275 Magnolia, Long Beach 90802
8 Jan Pluim Pasadena P 300 East Walnut, Pasadena 91101
9 C. Edward Simpson Pasadena R 300 East Walnut, Pasadena 91101
10 Bobbi Tillmon Santa Monica G 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica 90401
11 H. Chester Horn Santa Monica I 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica 90401
12 Norman P. Tarle Santa Monica J 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica 90401
13 Lawrence Cho Santa Monica R 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica 90401
14 Mary Ann Murphy Stanley Mosk 25 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles 90012
15 Charles F. Palmer Stanley Mosk 33 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles 90012
19 David L. Minning Stanley Mosk 35 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles 90012
20 Stephen M. Moloney Stanley Mosk 41 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles 90012
21 Ralph W. Dau Stanley Mosk 57 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles 90012
22 Anthony J. Mohr Stanley Mosk 61 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles 90012
23 Laura C. Ellison Torrance A 825 Maple Avenue, Torrance 90503
24 Cary H. Nishimoto Torrance E 825 Maple Avenue, Torrance 90503
25 William G. Willet Torrance 11 825 Maple Avenue, Torrance 90503
26 James Kaddo Van Nuys I 6230 Sylmar Avenue, Van Nuys 91401
27 Michael Harwin Van Nuys M 6230 Sylmar Avenue, Van Nuys 91401
28 Elizabeth A. Lippitt Van Nuys W 6230 Sylmar Avenue, Van Nuys 91401
-Long Cause Courtrooms-
29 J. Stephen Czuleger Stanley Mosk 3 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles 90012
30 William A. MacLaughlin Stanley Mosk 89 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles 90012
31 Victor E. Chavez Stanley Mosk 96 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles 90012 5
805073875
• Los Angeles
– Non-preference cases: Judge Emile Elias
• Hears most pre-trial proceedings
• Group status conferences
• Sends out trials
• Goal: consistency, management
– Preference cases: Judge Kalin (new role)
• Similar duties to those of Judge Elias
– Settlement Judge (Bendix)
– Delay? Not on preference trials
– Coordination judge v. trial judge
• Riverside
– Department 10 is the new master calendar department
– Riverside is in the process of dismantling the master calendar system and complex
litigation department (Department 5, Judge Craig Riemer)
SoCA: Coordination Update
6
805073875
• Applies to cases filed after Aug. 11, 2014.
• Plaintiffs must file Preliminary Fact Sheet with complaint notifying parties
whether they intend to file preference motion.
• If plaintiffs do not indicate on their Preliminary Fact Sheet that they will be
moving for preference, plaintiffs must serve verified responses to standard
rogs within sixty (60) days after filing initial complaint.
• If plaintiffs indicated on their Preliminary Fact Sheet that they intend to
move for preference, they must provide verified responses to standard rogs
within thirty (30) days of filing their initial complaint.
• Defendants’ responses to standard interrogatories are due sixty (60) days
after service or sixty (60) days after plaintiff has served his/her verified
responses to standard rogs, whichever is later. If preference is granted,
defendants’ standard rog responses are due within 30 days of the Court’s
order granting preference.
New CMO for LASC Asbestos Cases
7
805073875
PLAINTIFF AND PERCIPIENT WITNESS DEPOSITION
• No depositions without (1) plaintiffs providing authorizations;
(2) producing all Social Security, military, medical records; and (3) plaintiffs’ verified
responses standard rogs.
• Plaintiff’s deposition limited to 20 hours unless showing of good cause.
• Must request additional time before deposition adjourns.
• Discovery conference with judge may be recorded by court reporter at the deposition.
• If plaintiffs’ attorney proceeds first, defense has the option of immediately taking the
defense deposition or waiting 5 court days.
• If plaintiffs’ attorney represents the witness noticed for depo, they must confirm
whether witness is available on noticed date or provide two available dates for
deposition within five (5) days of service of depo notice.
New CMO for LASC Asbestos Cases
(cont’d)
8
805073875
PMQ/COR DEPOSITIONS
• Plaintiffs must provide standard interrogatory responses which set
forth alleged products and locations before noticing PMQ/COR
depositions.
• Within 5 court days of notice of PMQ/COR deposition, defendants
must either: (1) provide 2 available dates for deposition; or (2) notify
plaintiff of intention to object.
• If defendant indicates it will object, it must file a formal objection.
• After formal objection is served, each party must assign a person to
meet and confer. Parties to meet and confer by phone or in person
within 5 court days.
New CMO for LASC Asbestos Cases
(cont’d)
9
805073875
• If unable to resolve, each party to submit short 5 page memo
outlining their position and setup a telephonic hearing with the court
for a preliminary ruling on objections to depo notice.
• Does not prevent formal motion to compel or protective order
afterward.
• If court orders defendant to produce witness, within 5 court days,
defendant must provide 2 available dates for PMQ/COR deposition.
• PMQ/COR depositions should not be done on the same topics.
Defendants can use prior testimony in lieu of new deposition if the
defendant and plaintiffs can stipulate to authenticity of prior
transcript.
New CMO for LASC Asbestos Cases
(cont’d)
10
805073875
• San Francisco
– Coordination Judge: Judge Teri Jackson
– Judge Jackson conducts informal discovery conferences in
attempt to prevent discovery motions. Hears all law and motion
and discovery motions.
– Occasionally presides over trials, but most often assigns out.
– Delay? Due to budget constraints very little courtroom
availability, even for preference cases. Major delays for non-
preference cases. Judge availability may be increasing.
– New Pre-Trial Order limiting MILs to 5 per side, and instituting
new standard juror questionnaire.
NorCA: Coordination Update
11
805073875
• Alameda
– Coordination Judge: In January 2015, Judge Jo-Lynne Lee
handed over the asbestos department to Judge Seligman
– Judge Seligman has assigned non-preference trials to himself.
He has assigned preference trials to Judge Spain and may
assign to other judges
– None of the current procedures will be changed, and he is using
Judge Lee’s CMO.
NorCal: Coordination Update (cont’d)
12
805073875
• San Mateo
– Coordination Judge: Judge Marie Weiner
– Judge Weiner serves as complex judge and presides over all
asbestos cases (have been approx. 6 cases in last 18 months)
– No General Orders
– Single Assignment—Judge Weiner handles all pre-trial issues
and presides over trial itself. Trial dates are firm.
NorCA: Coordination Update
13
805073875
• Solano County
– Coordinating Judge: Judge Paul Beeman
– Subject to standard Case Management Order
– Almost exclusively Brayton cases (now more than 25 pending)
– Very few asbestos cases have started trial and no asbestos
verdicts
• Santa Clara County
– Two asbestos cases pending, one of which was designated as
complex
NorCA: Coordination Update (cont’d)
14
805073875
SoCA: Filings
15
Year Mesothelioma Lung Cancer
Asbestosis Other Disease Total Cases
2014 140 32 22 14 208
2013 150 107 24 1 282
2012 130 95 24 5 254
2011 132 66 13 2 213
2010 112 58 14 2 186
• 2015 has seen a decrease in filings, due to decrease in lung cancer filings. As of early June, there were 75 filings in Los Angeles.
• Numbers are approximate and based on multiple sources
805073875
• 181 cases set for trial
• 71% settled
• Los Angeles
– At least 9 cases went to trial
– 3 were plaintiff verdicts
– 6 defense verdicts
• Lung cancer filings: Increased
• Federal filings and transfers: Decreased
• MSJs: no change since coordination
SoCA: 2014 Statistics
16
805073875
Year San Francisco Alameda Total
ThroughMay 2015
51 32 83
2014 106 84 190
2013 96 121 217
2012 140 114 254
2011 203 76 279
2010 237 100 337
NorCA: Filings
17
805073875
• San Francisco filings down
– Brayton filing in other jurisdictions: Solano, Alameda and Los
Angeles; Majority of cases filed in San Francisco in 2014 were
Brayton asbestosis claims
– Budget cuts: fewer courtrooms available – disincentive to
plaintiffs
– Centralized case handling by Judge Jackson who will remain in
her role through 2015
• Alameda filings also down
– Virtually all malignancies
– Centralized handling with Judge Seligman
NorCA Filings (cont’d)
18
805073875
• California Rules of Court Provide for Mandatory Settlement
Conferences (“MSC”) – a court sponsored mediation program
available to parties free of charge or at a nominal cost.
– Parties may either request an order to attend a MSC, or the
judge can exercise discretion and order the parties to MSC
– In Los Angeles County, all MSCs are heard by one of six civil
judges. In San Francisco, MSCs are heard by a panel of two
attorneys experienced in the type of law applied the parties’
cases.
Mandatory Settlement Conferences
19
805073875
Pros Cons
Inexpensive alternative to private mediation
Too many cases, too little time. Settlement officers do not have the resources to spend the time or energy each case needs to reach a settlement. Sessions may be as short as an hour.
Court’s attempt to promote judicial economy in the hopes that the case will not be tried.
High opportunity costs. Trial counsel and client must be personally present. Clients spend a lot of money to attend MSCs that are not likely to end in case resolution.
Intended to encourage parties to engage in serious settlement discussions.
As a result of low likelihood of success,parties do not treat MSCs seriously.
Mandatory Settlement Conferences (cont’d)
20
2014Plaintiff
Phillips (Fresno)
Davis (LA)
Bankhead(Alameda)
Whalen (Alameda)
Defense
O’Bryan(Contra Costa)
Felton(Santa Monica)
Abdun-Nur(Torrance)
Schildknegt(Long Beach)
Marquez(Santa Monica)
Hill (Central District)
Evans (Long Beach)
Moran (Santa Monica)
Koepke (San Francisco)
Lee (Santa Monica)
2013Plaintiff
Sutherland (LA)
Grigg (Alameda)
Smith (Alameda)
Saller (LA)
Medina (LA)
Marteney(Chatsworth)
Aikins (SF)
Rocha (SF)
Defense
Luros (Alameda)
Walter(Sacramento)
Erhart (Torrance)
Hernandezcueva (LBC)
Odell (Santa Monica)
Minton (LA)
Rush (LA)
Bishop (SF)
Nelson (Alameda)
21805073875
Verdicts (cont’d)
Plaintiff
Winkel (LA)
Hightower(Alameda)
Defense
Baeza (Long Beach)
Popawski (Van Nuys)
Williams (SF)
Hubbard (SF)
2015
Plaintiff
Monaco (LA)
Paulus (LA)
Izell (LA)
Keeney (LA)
Destin (SF)
Hellam (Alameda)
Scott (Alameda)
Lovelace(Sacramento)
Defense
Orona (LA)
Couscouris (LA)
Petitpas (LA)
Anderson (LA)
Elliot (LA)
Patchen (LA)
Skinner (Alameda)
2011Plaintiff
Mansir (LA)
Steffen (LA)
Strickland (LA)
Webb (LA)(JNOV granted by Judge post-verdict)
Ventimiglia (SF)
Bissett (Alameda)
Casey (SF)
Lenny (SF)
Bankhead(Alameda)
Defense
Williamson (LA)
Steiner (Santa Barbara)
Nunez (LA)
Morrison (LA)
Stone (SF)
Johnson (SF)
2010Plaintiff
Ricker (Alameda)
Farag (LA)
Pfeiffer (LA)
Geist (LA)
Harrell (LA)
Bjerke (LA)
Evans (LA)
Defense
Stewart (SF)
Brady (Alameda)
Smithson (SF)
Herring (LA)
Duncan (LA)
Kalil (LA)
Dix (LA)
Vaught (LA)
Johansen (LA)
Cox (LA)
2012
805073875 22
Verdicts (cont’d)
805073875
• Los Angeles Superior Court branch, Chatsworth, CA: a jury awarded
73 year old Judith Winkel $13 million dollars against Colgate-
Palmolive Co., finding that she contracted mesothelioma from using
its talcum powder. Jurors found that its talc, marketed as Cashmere
Bouquet, presented a substantial danger about which the company
failed to warn. A confidential settlement was entered into prior to the
commencement of the punitive damages phase of trial. It was the
first verdict against the company involving asbestos exposure from
talcum powder.
Winkel v. Colgate-Palmolive
23
805073875
CA Central District
• Federal removal and filings down
• Coordinated pre-trial proceedings: Judge William Young, USDC
Mass., Boston
– Approx. 16 cases
• Filings: File in CA Central District and mail copy to USDC Mass.
• Oral argument:
– No oral argument unless request is made
– Oral argument conducted by video
• Status conferences: Conducted by telephone
Federal Court: Update
24
805073875
• Limits a deposition of an individual to 7 hours, but has several
exceptions
• Exceptions:
– Complex litigation. However, if a doctor attests that there is
doubt that the witness will survive beyond six months, the
deposition is limited to 14 hours.
– Experts
– PMQs
• CertainTeed v. Superior Court (2014): Trial court may grant more
than the 14 hours in complex personal injury cases, if appropriate
under the circumstances.
– New CMO provides Defendants 20 hours for deposition even
in cases with a doctor’s declaration.
Deposition Limits (CCP 2025.290)
25
805073875
• Judge Elias issued a CMO on April 7, 2015, requiring disclosure of
bankruptcy trust claims and claims-related materials: “The Court
finds that facts relating to a plaintiff’s and/or decedent’s alleged
exposures to asbestos are not privileged and are discoverable.
Plaintiffs are required to disclose all facts relating to all of their alleged
exposures to asbestos, whether to the products or premises
attributable to named defendants, or to bankrupt or other
entities, and regardless of whether those facts have been, or
ever will be, included in a claim to a third party for the purpose
of obtaining compensation for an asbestos-related injury…”
• Six additional standard interrogatories were added pertaining to
bankruptcy trusts
Bankruptcy Trust Claims (cont’d)
26
805073875
• Initial confusion related to the definition of “YOU” and whether it
included plaintiffs’ attorneys was clarified by Judge Elias’ May 27,
2015 CMO, which answers that question affirmatively
• Plaintiffs are to produce bankruptcy documents with standard
interrogatory responses.
• Remaining issues to be resolved:
– Whether court maintains jurisdiction after case is resolved to
determine whether plaintiffs concealed bankruptcy trust
information; impact of set-offs and credits
– Ability of defendants to effectively examine plaintiff concerning
bankruptcy trust submissions during deposition
Bankruptcy Trust Claims (cont’d)
27
805073875
• Defendants brought a motion seeking to compel production of documents related to
bankruptcy trust submissions and also attempted to further depose plaintiff.
• Plaintiff testified that he “believed” claims had been submitted to BK trusts on his
behalf, but he was extremely evasive when asked follow-up questions. Defense
counsel was essentially stonewalled during the deposition between the non-responsive
answers and plaintiffs’ counsel instructing his client not to answer. After taking the
matter under submission, Judge Kalin’s Order stated that plaintiffs must produce and all
claims on submission to any bankruptcy trusts, as well as any bankruptcy trust claim
forms signed by plaintiff, but not yet submitted. However, the court found that un-
submitted and unsigned claim forms are privileged work product and/or covered by the
attorney-client privilege. Defendants are still entitled to a privilege log.
• Defendants’ attempt to further depose plaintiff was denied.
• Door appears to still be open for plaintiffs to delay investigating and preparing
bankruptcy claim documents until after the conclusion of the lawsuit.
Bankruptcy Trust Claims Case Example
Scharrer v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (LASC)
28
805073875
• Izell v Union Carbide, et. al. (Oct 2014) - Jury here originally
awarded $30 Million in compensatory damages to Mr. Izell and his
wife. While the Court of Appeal reduced that award to $6 Million
after trial, it refused to reduce the $18 Million in punitive damages.
UCC found 65% responsible, whereas joint compound
manufacturers to which it supplied were only found 1%
responsible. The Court found that this apportionment was
supported by the verdict, because the jury could weigh the
reprehensibility of the various companies when apportioning fault. It
is difficult to produce evidence of another defendant’s
reprehensibility when they are not in the Courtroom, so defendants
should develop evidence of codefendants’ conduct in discovery.
New Case Law
29
805073875
• Children's Hospital v. Blue Cross (June 2014) – relying on
Howell, the Court held the trial court erred by excluding
evidence of the historical paid lesser amounts accepted by the
hospital because the reasonable value of the hospital’s medical
services must be determined after considering all factors,
including the amounts the hospital accepts as payment for its
services; the billed price is not necessarily representative of
either the cost of providing those services or their market value.
New Case Law (cont’d)
30
805073875
• Ganoe v. Metalclad. et. al. (July 2014) – Court of Appeal ruled that
plaintiffs’ amended responses to respondent Metalclad’s written
discovery, which were served after respondent filed summary
judgment but before the summary judgment hearing, setting forth
specific facts supporting plaintiff’s exposure to respondent’s product
was sufficient to defeat respondent’s motion for summary judgment.
In dicta, Court of Appeal reasoned that fact witness’ testimony that
he had never heard of respondent’s company was not sufficient
evidence to shift respondent’s burden of proof on summary
judgment, unless respondent also showed witness its company
logo to determine whether or not witness was able to recognize it.
Now we are seeing plaintiffs’ attorneys conduct re-direct
examination asking deponents whether or not seeing defendant’s
logo would help them remember the defendant’s products/services.
New Case Law (cont’d)
31
805073875
• Ramos v. Brenntag Specialties (awaiting argument to be set in
California Supreme Court). In March, 2014, the Court of Appeal
held that the component parts doctrine does not shield a supplier of
raw materials that itself allegedly caused injury when used as
intended in an occupational setting by a plaintiff engaged in a
manufacturing process. In June 2014, Uriarte v. Scott Sales Co
followed suit. Both cases have been depublished, pending review,
with Ramos as lead case. The primary case with which they conflict
is still citable as good law, Maxton v. Western States Metals, Inc.
(2012) 203 Cal. App.4th 81.
New Case Law (cont’d)
32
805073875
• Haver v. BNSF Railway Co. (Awaiting argument to be set in California
Supreme Court). In June 2014, the Court of Appeal agreed with Campbell v. Ford
Motor Co. (2012), that a premises owner does not have a duty to protect family
members of workers on its premises from secondary exposure to asbestos used
during the course of the property's owner's business. Plaintiff was neither an
employee nor a visitor to the employer's premises. The difference between Haver
and Kesner is that the defendant in Kesner is both a premises owner and a
manufacturer of asbestos products, whereas the defendant in Haver is only a
premises owner. Plaintiff is supported by the Consumer Attorneys of California.
Defendant's amici curiae include the Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., Chamber
of Commerce of the United States of America, National Association of
Manufacturers, American Tort Reform Association, NFIB Small Business Legal
Center, International Association of Defense Counsel, Federation of Defense &
Corporate Counsel, Western States Petroleum Association, Pacific Legal
Foundation, Association of American Railroads, The California Chamber of
Commerce, and The Civil Justice Association of California.
New Case Law (cont’d)
33
805073875
New Case Law (cont’d)
34
Kesner v. Superior Court (awaiting argument to be set in
California Supreme Court). On May 15, 2014, the Court of Appeal
allowed a take-home claim to go forward. However, Kesner involves
both a manufacturer of asbestos and a premises owner (Apex), a
factual distinction that was critical to its analysis and conclusion. Along
with Haver, it’s now fully briefed and awaiting argument setting in the
California Supreme Court. Plaintiff is supported by the Consumer
Attorneys of California and the Brayton Purcell law firm. Defendant's
amici curiae include the Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., Chamber
of Commerce of the United States of America, National Association of
Manufacturers, American Tort Reform Association, NFIB Small
Business Legal Center, International Association of Defense Counsel,
Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel, Resolute Management,
Owens-Illinois, CertainTeed Corporation, Honeywell International, Inc.,
and Civil Justice Association of California.
805073875
• Webb v. Special Electric Co. (awaiting argument to be set in
California Supreme Court). On March 14, 2013, the Court of
Appeal decided that a supplier of raw asbestos to Johns-Manville
was liable to failure to warn a downstream user who contracted
mesothelioma while working with Johns-Manville pipe allegedly
containing asbestos fibers supplied by the defendant. Among other
issues, the controversial decision raises questions about the
application of the component parts doctrine and law regarding
causation. Further, it raises the practical question whether a
supplier to a sophisticated manufacturer should have a duty to warn
end-users, when the manufacturer already owes that duty and the
supplier has no reasonable means of communicating the warning.
Defendant's petition for review was granted in 2013 and the case
has been fully briefed and awaiting argument to be set since June
2014.
New Case Law (cont’d)
35
805073875
• BSNF Railway Company v. Superior Court (awaiting
determination of Plaintiffs' Petition for Review to California
Supreme Court). On March 27, 2015, in a wrongful death case
brought by relatives of BSNF's deceased non-resident former
employee, a Court of Appeal granted BSNF's petition for writ of
mandate, reversing the trial court's denial of its motion to quash
based on lack of general personal jurisdiction. It did so despite
evidence that the railroad generates approximately 6 percent of its
revenue, employs 5 percent of its track and employs 3,520 people in
California. The Court relied upon recent U.S. Supreme Court cases
in Daimler AG v. Bauman,134 S. Ct. 746, 751 (2014) and Goodyear
Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct 2846, 2854
(2011).
New Case Law (cont’d)
36
805073875
Most jurisdictions have found that Daimler "expressly cast doubt"
on prior precedents that permitted general jurisdiction on the basis
that the defendant was doing business in the forum. In early May
2015, Plaintiff filed a petition for review to the California Supreme
Court, which is still pending. In early May 2015, Plaintiff filed a
petition for review to the California Supreme Court, which is still
pending. Currently pending on the merits is Bristol-Myers Squibb v.
Superior Court, where nonresidents of California sought
jurisdiction against a nonresident pharmaceutical drug
manufacturer. The Court has also already issued “Grant and Hold”
orders on at least three other cases addressing general
jurisdiction--holding those pending its decision on Bristol-Myers.
New Case Law (cont’d)
37
805073875
• Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (decided June 18, 2015).
Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment that had been granted
to manufacturer of an arcing machine. Its function was to abrade
brake linings, which allegedly released asbestos dust when applied
to asbestos-containing linings. The decision contains an extensive
discussion of O’Neil and the Tellez-Cordova exception to the general
rule barring imposition of strict liability on a manufacturer for harm
caused by another manufacturer’s product.
New Case Law (cont’d)
38
805073875
• Paulus v. Crane (2014) – Defendant not entitled to setoffs for settlements
plaintiffs would be entitled to recover, but had not yet sought, from BK
trusts.
• Barabin v. AJ (2014) – Trial court cannot abdicate duty as gatekeeper.
Trial court's failure to make findings about the relevance and reliability of the
expert testimony (every exposure theory) under FRE 702 and Daubert was
an abuse of discretion.
• Pfeifer v. John Crane (2013) – Held the trial court correctly declined to give
John Crane’s requested instruction on “sophisticated user”, which stated
that employees of a sophisticated user are deemed to be sophisticated
users.
New Case Law (cont’d)
39
805073875
• SoCA: Appeals are now decided by the Second District, Division 4
because of recusals
• Take-home duty (Kesner/Haver). Supreme Court has not yet
assigned date for oral argument
• Automakers and the component-part doctrine (Petitpas). Court
of Appeal has not yet assigned date for oral argument
• Whether intermediary’s sophistication obviates supplier’s duty to
warn intermediary (e.g., JM) and end product user (Webb). Supreme
Court has not yet assigned date for oral argument
• Duties under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation
Act (Murat)
Issues on Appeal
40
805073875
• Duties and applicable law in suits involving premises outside of
U.S. (Kordestani, Sarooie)
• Plaintiff’s failure to introduce meaningful financial condition evidence
at trial—potential reversal of punitive damages award
(Soto/Medina). Court of Appeal will likely issue its decision before
July 31, 2015
Issues on Appeal (cont’d)
41
805073875
Jayme C. Long
Los Angeles, CA
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
(213) 243-6229
Contact Information
42