Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 19STCV27729, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV27729    Hearing Date: August 26, 2022    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

            Defendant Morse Tec LLC, successor to Borg-Warner Corporation filed a motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim. 

            A.        Objections

Defendant’s Objection Nos. 1-11:  Overruled.

B.        Summary Adjudication

Defendant first argues allegations of negligence and gross negligence cannot support an award of punitive damages as a matter of law.  (Motion at p. 11.)  The Third Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for negligence and products liability.  “[P]unitive damages may be recovered in a products liability case [citation] and in a negligence action” if the plaintiff can “establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of its conduct and that it willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.”  (Hilliard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 395.)  Therefore, it is incorrect to say punitive damages are not available here as a matter of law.

Next Defendant argues Plaintiffs have no evidence supporting an award of punitive damages.  (Motion at p. 11.)  A defendant seeking summary judgment must “conclusively negate[] a necessary element of the plaintiff’s case, or . . . demonstrate[] that under no hypothesis is there a material issue of fact that requires the process of trial.”  (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.)  To show that a plaintiff cannot establish an element of a cause of action, a defendant must make the initial showing “that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.)  “The defendant may, but need not, present evidence that conclusively negates an element of the plaintiff’s cause of action.  The defendant may also present evidence that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence – as through admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he has discovered nothing.”  (Id. at p. 855.)  A plaintiff’s deposition testimony that the plaintiff has no knowledge of any exposure to the defendant’s products may be sufficient to shift the burden to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact.  (McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1103-1104.)  The plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he did not recall ever working with a product manufactured by the defendant may not be sufficient to shift the burden if the plaintiff is able to prove his case by another means.  (Weber v. John Crane, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1439.)  “ ‘If plaintiffs respond to comprehensive interrogatories seeking all known facts with boilerplate answers that restate their allegations, or simply provide laundry lists of people and/or documents, the burden of production will almost certainly be shifted to them once defendants move for summary judgment and properly present plaintiff’s factually devoid discovery responses.’”  (Id. at p. 1440.)

            Defendant cites Plaintiffs’ responses to interrogatories and deposition testimony.  (Undisputed Material Fact “UMF” 8-18.)  Defendant cites to Plaintiffs’ Response to Special Interrogatory No. 7.  (UMF 8, 9, 11, 12, 13.)  That response states that from 1960 until the mid-1980s, Alan Gottfried removed and installed clutches including old and new clutch discs made by Borg-Warner, there was dust, and Alan Gottfried brought his dusty work clothes home where the decedent lived.  (Luong Decl., Ex. 2 at pp. 41, , 44.)  The response to Interrogatory No. 1 states Borg-Warner was a member of trade organizations, including ASME and NSC, whose publications indicated the link between asbestos exposure and disease.  (Id. at pp. 6-7.)  Borg-Warner did a study in 1972 about asbestos exposure from its clutches, but waited until the 1980s to inform the public of the danger of its products.  (Id. at p. 8.)  These responses are far from factually-devoid.

That the decedent testified at his deposition that he had no communications with Borg-Warner and that Alan Gottfried does not have information about the punitive damages claim does not mean Plaintiffs cannot prove their punitive damages claim with other evidence.

Because Defendant failed to shift the burden, the motion is DENIED.

The moving party is to give notice.