Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 19STCV35344, Date: 2022-12-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV35344    Hearing Date: December 23, 2022    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BICC Cables Corporation

            Defendant BICC Cables Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiffs William Gaborko and Mary Gaborko cannot show exposure to a product from Defendant containing asbestos.  Plaintiffs did not file an opposition.

            Defendant served a special interrogatory asking for all facts supporting the claim that Defendant’s products exposed the decedent to asbestos, and Plaintiffs responded in a conclusory manner without citing any specific evidence.  (Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) 6, 7; Ex. C at pp. 4-5.)  The only product identification witness testified he has no knowledge of Defendant or its related companies and no knowledge whether the decedent ever worked around Defendant’s products.  (UMF 10, 11, 12; Ex. G at pp. 365-367.)  This evidence was sufficient to shift the burden to Plaintiffs.  Because Plaintiffs did not file an opposition, they did not show the existence of any disputed issue of material fact.

            Therefore, Defendant BICC Cables Corporation’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.  Defendant is to file a proposed judgment within five days.

            The moving party is to give notice.

BW/IP, Inc.

            Defendant BW/IP, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiffs William Gaborko and Mary Gaborko cannot show exposure to a product from Defendant containing asbestos.  Plaintiffs did not file an opposition.

            Defendant served a special interrogatory asking for all facts supporting the claim that Defendant’s products exposed the decedent to asbestos.  The responses contained a lot of details about the decedent working with Defendant’s products.  (Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) 8-11; Ex. E at pp. 4-5.)  However, the only product identification witness has no knowledge about the decedent working with or around Defendant’s products.  (UMF 12, 13, 16; Ex. I at pp. 242-243.)  Thus, Defendant satisfied its burden of showing that Plaintiffs do not have and cannot obtain evidence supporting the contentions about the decedent working with Defendant’s products.  The burden shifted to Plaintiffs, but because Plaintiffs did not file an opposition, they did not show the existence of any disputed issue of material fact.

            Therefore, Defendant BW/IP, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.  Defendant is to file a proposed judgment within five days.

            The moving party is to give notice.

Eaton Corporation

            Defendant Eaton Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiffs William Gaborko and Mary Gaborko cannot show exposure to a product from Defendant containing asbestos.  Plaintiffs did not file an opposition.

            Defendant served a special interrogatory asking for all facts supporting the claim that Defendant’s products exposed the decedent to asbestos.  The responses contained a lot of details about the decedent working with Defendant’s products.  (Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) 6,7; Ex. C at pp. 4-5.)  However, the only product identification witness has no knowledge about the decedent working with or around Defendant’s products.  (UMF 10, 11, 12; Ex. G at pp. 363-365; Ex. H.)  Thus, Defendant satisfied its burden of showing that Plaintiffs do not have and cannot obtain evidence supporting the contentions about the decedent working with Defendant’s products.  The burden shifted to Plaintiffs, but because Plaintiffs did not file an opposition, they did not show the existence of any disputed issue of material fact.

            Therefore, Defendant Eaton Corporation’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.  Defendant is to file a proposed judgment within five days.

            The moving party is to give notice.

Reliance Electric Company

            Defendant Reliance Electric Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiffs William Gaborko and Mary Gaborko cannot show exposure to a product from Defendant containing asbestos.  Plaintiffs did not file an opposition.

            Defendant served a special interrogatory asking for all facts supporting the claim that Defendant’s products exposed the decedent to asbestos.  The responses contained a lot of details about the decedent working with Defendant’s products.  (Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) 6,7; Ex. G at pp. 4-6.)  Plaintiff stated the decedent’s son, Mark Gaborko, testified his father worked with Defendant’s motors.  (Ex. J at p. 5.)  Mark Gaborko testified his father worked on Reliance motors between 1985 and 2001.  (Ex. L at pp. 310-311.)  Defendant supplied evidence that the Reliance motors at issue here did not contain asbestos.  (UMF 36; Wennerstrom Decl., ¶¶ 8-10.)  The burden shifted to Plaintiffs, but because Plaintiffs did not file an opposition, they did not show the existence of any disputed issue of material fact.

            Therefore, Defendant Reliance Electric Company’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.  Defendant is to file a proposed judgment within five days.

            The moving party is to give notice.

RSCC Wire & Cable LLC

            Defendant RSCC Wire & Cable LLc filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiffs William Gaborko and Mary Gaborko cannot show exposure to a product from Defendant containing asbestos.  Plaintiffs did not file an opposition.

            Defendant served a special interrogatory asking for all facts supporting the claim that Defendant’s products exposed the decedent to asbestos.  The responses contained a lot of details about the decedent working with Defendant’s products.  (Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) 6,7; Ex. C at pp. 4-5.)  However, the only product identification witness has no knowledge about the decedent working with or around Defendant’s products.  (UMF 4, 5; Ex. D at pp. 235-236.)  Thus, Defendant satisfied its burden of showing that Plaintiffs do not have and cannot obtain evidence supporting the contentions about the decedent working with Defendant’s products.  The burden shifted to Plaintiffs, but because Plaintiffs did not file an opposition, they did not show the existence of any disputed issue of material fact.

            Therefore, Defendant RSCC Wire & Cable LLC’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.  Defendant is to file a proposed judgment within five days.

            The moving party is to give notice.