Office of the Clerk of Court
Michael E. Kunz, Clerk of Court
MDL 875
Opinions
Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) contains related information.

 MDL 875 Opinions Issued by Judge Robreno
 Recent Opinions

MDL 875 Opinions Issued by Judge Robreno
Date Description Download
08/08/2014 Spreadsheet of MDL 875 Opinions Issued by Judge Robreno
12/08/2011 Westlaw and LexisNexis have added the vast majority of decisions, footnote orders and opinions issued in MDL-875 to their searchable databases. This PDF contains information about how to search for such rulings.


MDL-875 Opinions (by Judge Robreno unless otherwise indicated)
Date Opinion Title or Topic Download
09/09/2014 On August 26, 2014, the Court issued an opinion pertaining to "take-home exposure" to asbestos under Pennsylvania law.
08/08/2014 Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of the LWCA because the only evidence of alleged exposure was from after the 1975 broadening of the statute.
08/08/2014 Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant as to Plaintiff's wrongful death claims on grounds of the statute of limitations; granted in favor of Defendant as to Plaintiff's survival claims on grounds of insufficient product identification/causation evidence under Louisiana law.
07/10/2014 On July 9, 2014, the Court issued an opinion pertaining to punitive damages in the MARDOC litigation.
03/12/2014 On March 11, 2014, 5,974 MARDOC Motions to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction were granted; 293 Motions to Dismiss for improper service were denied."
02/05/2014 Summary judgment granted in part and denied in part in a "CVLO" case subject to the Court's renewed scheduling order. Summary judgment was granted as to turbine insulation on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under Illinois law. Summary judgment was denied as to switchgear because an Illinois court is better situated to determine whether Illinois recognizes the "bare metal defense."
02/05/2014 Summary judgment granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment was granted regarding strict liability claims because a Navy ship is not a "product." Summary judgment was denied regarding the remaining negligence claims.
02/05/2014 Summary judgment granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment was granted regarding strict liability claims because a Navy ship is not a "product." Summary judgment was denied regarding the remaining negligence claims.
02/05/2014 Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under maritime law.
02/05/2014 Memorandum opinion addressing a Navy shipbuilder's liability under a negligence theory.
02/05/2014 Summary judgment in favor of Defendant was denied because Defendant could not show that a locomotive was not "in use" as contemplated by the LIA.
12/05/2013 Motion to Dismiss granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of preemption under the Locomotive Inspection Act.
12/05/2013 Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under North Carolina law.
12/05/2013 Plaintiffs' federal common law maritime claims were not barred by the South Carolina door-closing statute (because of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution); summary judgment was granted in favor of defendant on grounds of insufficient exposure / causation evidence under maritime law.
12/05/2013 Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under North Carolina law.
12/05/2013 Plaintiffs' federal common law maritime claims were not barred by the South Carolina door-closing statute (because of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution); summary judgment was granted in favor of defendant on grounds of insufficient exposure / causation evidence under maritime law.
12/05/2013 Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under North Carolina law.
12/05/2013 Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under California law.
12/05/2013 Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under California law.
12/05/2013 Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under California law.
12/05/2013 Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under California law.
12/05/2013 Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under California law.
08/28/2013 Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under North Carolina law.
08/28/2013 Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under North Carolina law.
08/28/2013 Summary judgment in favor of Defendant was denied because Defendant failed to establish that it did not owe a duty to Decedent regarding "take-home" exposure, Plaintiff did not have a duty to preserve Dedent's lung tissue, and Plaintiff identified sufficient evidence of product identification/causation to support her claim for "take-home" exposure under Tennessee law.
08/28/2013 Under New York law, summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation.
08/27/2013 MARDOC: 418 Motions to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction were granted; 168 Motions to Dismiss for improper service were denied.
06/14/2013 The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of certain cases due to failure to comply with AO 12.
06/04/2013 Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required to prevail on the defense under maritime law.
06/04/2013 Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product identification evidence.
06/04/2013 Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product identification evidence.
06/04/2013 Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product identification evidence.
06/04/2013 Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product identification evidence.
06/04/2013 Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product identification evidence.
06/04/2013 Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product identification evidence.
05/03/2013 Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product identification evidence.
05/03/2013 Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product identification evidence.
05/03/2013 Summary judgment denied, as their was sufficient product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013 Summary judgment granted due to lack of product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013 Summary judgment granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment was granted regarding strict liability claims because a ship is not a "product." Summary judgment was denied regarding the remaining negligence claims.
05/03/2013 Summary judgment granted due to lack of product ID / causation evidence; Plaintiff's expert report was excluded because it was unsworn.
05/03/2013 Summary judgment denied; there was sufficient product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013 Summary judgment granted; there was insufficient product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013 Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013 Summary judgment granted; unsufficient product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013 Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013 Summary judgment granted; insufficient product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013 Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013 Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013 Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013 Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product ID / causation evidence.
03/25/2013 Summary judgment in favor of defendant on grounds of the Indiana statutute of repose was denied because the Court determined (as Plaintiff argued) that Illinois law applied.
03/25/2013 Partial summary judgment was granted in favor of Defendant with respect to plaintiff's second diagnosis, as Plaintiff failied to amend complaint to add claim for second diagnosis within the two year period provided by the statute of limitations, and did not show "good cause" for an amendment at the summary judgment stage.
03/25/2013 Partial summary judgment was granted in favor of Defendant with respect to plaintiff's second diagnosis, as Plaintiff failied to amend complaint to add claim for second diagnosis within the two year period provided by the statute of limitations, and did not show "good cause" for an amendment at the summary judgment stage.
03/25/2013 Partial summary judgment was granted in favor of Defendant with respect to plaintiff's second diagnosis, as Plaintiff failied to amend complaint to add claim for second diagnosis within the two year period provided by the statute of limitations, and did not show "good cause" for an amendment at the summary judgment stage.
03/25/2013 Partial summary judgment was granted in favor of Defendant with respect to plaintiff's second diagnosis, as Plaintiff failied to amend complaint to add claim for second diagnosis within the two year period provided by the statute of limitations, and did not show "good cause" for an amendment at the summary judgment stage.
03/08/2013 Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required to prevail on the defense under maritime law.
03/08/2013 Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the government contractor defense because Plaintiff identified a genuine dispute of material fact.
03/08/2013 Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required to prevail on the defense under maritime law.
02/21/2013 Summary judgment in favor of Defendant granted under New Jersey law on grounds of insufficient product identification evidence.
02/21/2013 Summary judgment in favor of Defendant granted under New Jersey law on grounds of insufficient product identification evidence.
02/20/2013 Summary judgment in favor of Defendant granted under New Jersey law on grounds of insufficient product identification evidence.
02/19/2013 Summary judgment in favor of Defendant granted in part under New Jersey law on grounds of insufficient product identification evidence.
02/19/2013 The case was remanded for consideration by the transferor court (with a suggestion to transfer to the district of New Jersey), as the Court determined that the "bare metal defense" is an unsettled issue under New Jersey law.
02/14/2013 Summary judgment in favor of Defendant is granted because Plaintiff is seeking liability on a premises owner liability theory but Plaintiff failed to identify any evidence of a breach of duty by Defendant as a premises owner.
02/08/2013 Defendant Goulds could only potentially face liability in this action if New Jersey law holds Defendant liable for alleged exposure to asbestos arising from asbetsos components used with its products that were not manufactured or supplied by the defendant. This needs to be determined by a New Jersey court since there is no precedent for "bare metal" in that state.
02/08/2013 Summary judgment in favor of Defendant is granted under New Jersey law with respect to alleged asbestos in connection with pumps because Plaintiff has failed to identify sufficient product identification / causation evidence. Summary judgment in favor of Defendant is denied under New Jersey law with respect to alleged asbestos in connection with compressors.
02/07/2013 No reasonable jury could conclude from the evidence that Decedent was exposed to asbestos from gaskets supplied by Defendant (or Joy) such that it was a substantial factor in the development of his illness. Summary judgment was granted under New Jersey law.
02/07/2013 No reasonable jury could conclude from the evidence that Decedent was exposed to asbestos from gaskets supplied by Defendant (or Joy) such that it was a substantial factor in the development of his illness. Summary judgment was granted under New Jersey law.
02/07/2013 Defendant Warren could only potentially face liability in this action if New Jersey law holds Defendant liable for alleged exposure to asbestos arising from packing that was used with Warren pumps but were not manufactured or supplied by Warren, such as replacement packing. This needs to be determined by a New Jersey court since there is no precedent for "bare metal" in that state.
01/22/2013 The case was remanded for consideration by the transferor court, as it involved numerous complicated and interrelated issues, some of which were unsettled issues of state law.
12/10/2012 Summary judgment in favor of defendant was granted with respect to strict product liability claims because a ship is not a "product" within the meaning of strict product liability law. With respect to the remaining negligence-based claims, summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the government contractor defense because Plaintiff identified a genuine dispute of material fact; summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required to prevail on the defense under maritime law.
12/10/2012 Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient product identification/causation evidence under maritime law.
12/03/2012 Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required to prevail on the defense under maritime law.
12/03/2012 Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the government contractor defense because Plaintiff identified a genuine dispute of material fact. Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required to prevail on the defense under maritime law.
12/03/2012 Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required to prevail on the defense under maritime law.
11/26/2012 Summary judgment in favor of Defendant is granted with respect to claims arising from alleged asbestos exposure occurring prior to May 19, 1980 because they are barred by the Alabama statute of limitations.
11/09/2012 Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required to prevail on the defense under maritime law.
11/09/2012 Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required to prevail on the defense under maritime law.
11/08/2012 Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the government contractor defense because Plaintiff identified a genuine dispute of material fact. Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required to prevail on the defense under maritime law.
11/07/2012 Summary judgment in favor of defendant was granted with respect to strict product liability claims because a ship is not a "product" within the meaning of strict product liability law. With respect to the remaining negligence-based claims, summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied because Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that it was an "employee" of the government as defined in the Federal Tort Claims Act such that it would be entitled to immunity on that basis; also, Defendant has failed to identify the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact with respect to Plaintiff's negligence claim.
10/19/2012 Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient product identification/causation evidence under maritime law.
10/19/2012 Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient product identification/causation evidence under maritime law.
10/19/2012 Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient product identification/causation evidence under maritime law.
10/18/2012 Summary judgment granted on grounds of the government contractor defense because plaintiff failed to identify evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact.
10/17/2012 Summary judgment in favor of Defendant denied because Plaintiff presented evidence that Decedent was exposed to asbestos-containing gasket and packing that were original to the pumps at issue and supplied by Defendant.
10/17/2012 Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient product identification/causation evidence under maritime law.
10/16/2012 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted as to the C-97 aircrafts since Defendant presented evidence that Goodyear brakes were not used on this aircraft and Plaintiff failed to controvert this evidence.
10/12/2012 Plaintiff's expert report deemed inadmissible as it was produced in an "unsworn" form; without expert report, Plaintiff lacked sufficient product identification to withstand summary judgment as there was no evidence in the record that the insulation at issue was manufactured by defendant CBS Corporation / Westinghouse.
10/12/2012 Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant on grounds of insufficient product identification/exposure/causation evidence under maritime law.
10/10/2012 Judge Robreno's opinion regarding the motions to dismiss pending in the Eastern Distric of Virginia cases.
10/10/2012 Judge Robreno's opinion regarding the sophisticated user defense in maritime law.
10/08/2012 Plaintiff has pointed to evidence that contradicts (or at least appears to be inconsistent with) Foster Wheeler's evidence pertaining to the availability to Foster Wheeler of the government contractor defense.
10/08/2012 Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant on grounds of insufficient product identification/exposure/causation evidence under maritime law.
08/14/2012 Corrected Memorandum Opinion regarding Motions to Dismiss in the MARDOC cases. Please see the MARDOC page for a complete list of exhibits.
08/06/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment granted under Louisiana law. (07/24/2012 hearing).
08/06/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment granted when Plaintiff had no produce ID evidence. (07/24/2012 hearing).
08/06/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment granted when Plaintiff had failed to disclose witnesses. (07/24/2012 hearing).
08/06/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment denied under Louisiana law. (07/24/2012 hearing).
08/06/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment granted when Plaintiffs had no product ID evidence. (07/24/2012 hearing).
08/06/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment denied under maritime law. (07/24/2012 hearing).
08/06/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment granted under maritime law. (07/24/2012 hearing).
08/06/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment granted when Plaintiffs' witness' testimony was speculative. (07/13/2012 hearing).
08/06/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment as to punitive damages denied. (07/13/2012 hearing).
08/06/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment denied under maritime and California law. (07/13/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment granted under maritime law. (06/28/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment denied under California law. (06/28/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment granted under maritime law. (06/26/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment denied under New York law. (06/26/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment denied under maritime law; maritime time has not adopted the sophisticated user defense (06/19/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment denied under maritime law; maritime time has not adopted the sophisticated user defense (06/19/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment denied under maritime law (06/19/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment granted under maritime law (06/19/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment granted under maritime law (06/19/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment granted under maritime law (06/19/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment granted under maritime law (06/19/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012 Motion for Summary Judgment granted under maritime law (06/19/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012 MSJ granted under maritime law (06/12/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012 MSJ denied because maritime law has not recognized the sophisticated user defense when an intermediary such as the Navy is involved (06/12/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012 MSJ denied under Pennsylvania law (06/05/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012 MSJ denied under Pennsylvania law (06/05/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012 Plaintiff's claims barred by the Indiana statute of repose (05/22/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012 MSJ granted regarding claims governed by maritime law (05/22/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012 MSJ granted under maritime law (05/22/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012 Some of Plaintiff's claims were barred by the Indiana Statute of Repose; others were governed by maritime law (05/22/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012 MSJ and Motion to Compel granted in part, denied in part (05/22/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012 MSJ granted; Defendant asserted government contractor defense, and Plaintiff had no expert to rebut (05/22/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012 MSJ denied under Pennsylvania law (05/22/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012 Most of Plaintiff's claims governed by Indiana Statute of Repose; other, maritime law claims will go to trial (05/22/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012 MSJ denied under maritime law (05/22/2012 hearing).
05/22/2012 MSJ denied; but Defendant's motion to strike declaration as "sham affidavit" is granted.
05/22/2012 MSJ denied when Illinois (rather than Indiana) law applied; second MSJ that made product ID argument denied as untimely (from May 11, 2012 hearing).
05/22/2012 MSJ denied on all grounds (from May 11, 2012 hearing).
05/22/2012 MSJ denied under Illinois law (from May 11, 2012 hearing).
05/22/2012 MSJ granted under maritime law; motion to strike affidavit denied (from May 11, 2012 hearing).
05/22/2012 MSJ granted under maritime law due to insufficient product identification (from May 8, 2012 hearing).
05/22/2012 MSJ granted under maritime law due to insufficient product identification (from May 8, 2012 hearing).
05/22/2012 MSJ denied under Kansas law based on product ID and causation grounds (from May 8, 2012 hearing).
04/20/2012 Judge Angell's opinion regarding certain discovery issues in Wallace and Graham North Carolina cases.
04/16/2012 MSJ denied in part in CVLO "top ten" case, under Illinois law (from March 27, 2012 hearing).
04/16/2012 MSJ granted in part and denied in part in CVLO "top ten" case, based upon product identification (from March 27, 2012 hearing).
04/16/2012 MSJ denied in CVLO "top ten" case, and certain issues will be remanded to the court sitting in Wisconsin to adjudicate (from March 27, 2012 hearing).
04/16/2012 Memorandum opinion addressing "five representative" MSJs in many N.D. California cases (from March 20, 2012 hearing).
04/16/2012 Summary judgment granted when plaintiffs' expert testimony stricken (from March 20, 2012 hearing).
04/16/2012 Summary judgment granted when plaintiff failed to respond to defendant's arguments (from March 20, 2012 hearing).
04/16/2012 Summary judgment denied when defendant first raised product identification evidence in their reply brief (from March 20, 2012 hearing).
04/16/2012 Motion for summary judgment granted on product identification grounds (from March 20, 2012 hearing).
03/16/2012 Judge Robreno overruled objections to two of Magistrate Judge Strawbridge's orders regarding motions in limine and a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
03/05/2012 Summary judgment granted in part and denied in part based on product identification, expert witness challenges, and the "bare metal defense."
03/05/2012 Summary judgment granted in part and denied in part based on product identification and the "bare metal defense."
03/05/2012 Summary judgment granted in part and denied in part based on product identification and the government contractor defense.
03/05/2012 Summary judgment granted on product identification grounds under maritime law.
03/05/2012 Summary judgment granted to Defendant Foster Wheeler under North Dakota law on product identification / causation grounds.
03/05/2012 Summary judgment granted when Plaintiff failed to contradict Defendant's evidence.
03/05/2012 Summary judgment granted when there was no evidence that Defendant worked with asbestos-containing products.
03/05/2012 Summary judgment granted because of "bare metal defense."
03/05/2012 Summary judgment granted because of "bare metal defense."
03/05/2012 Summary judgment granted because the "bare metal defense" applies under maritime law.
03/05/2012 Summary judgment granted when there was no evidence that Defendant worked with asbestos-containing products.
03/05/2012 Summary judgment granted because the "bare metal defense" applies under maritime law.
03/05/2012 Summary judgment granted because the "bare metal defense" applies under maritime law.
03/05/2012 Summary judgment granted after unsworn expert report excluded.
03/05/2012 Summary judgment granted because of "bare metal defense."
03/05/2012 Summary judgment granted because of "bare metal defense."
03/05/2012 Summary judgment denied when there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Boyle test was met.
03/05/2012 Summary judgment granted when Plaintiff's declaration was unsigned and unsworn.
02/03/2012 Judge Robreno's opinion addressing the "bare metal defense" under maritime law.
02/03/2012 Judge Robreno's opinion addressing Defendants' motions to dismiss based on preemption and political question.
01/27/2012 Judge Hey's order regarding sharing costs of production; plaintiff's motion granted in part and denied in part.
01/27/2012 Judge Hey's order regarding defendant's costs of production.
01/27/2012 Judge Hey's opinion denying denfendat's motion for a protective order and granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion to compel.
01/27/2012 Judge Hey's opinion denying defendant's motion to quash a subpoena.
01/27/2012 Judge Hey's opinion granting defendant's motion to compel; plaintiff must produce information regarding other asbestos claims, including against bankruptcy trusts.
01/27/2012 Judge Hey's opinion granting in part and denying in part various discovery motions.
01/25/2012 Judge Strawbridge's decision denying certain defendants' motions in limine in an E.D. Pa. case.
01/19/2012 Summary judgment in favor of defendant denied because, under Wisconsin's liberal standard for product identification, there was sufficient evidence (primarily in the form of co-worker testimony) from which a reasonable jury could conclude that decedent was exposed to asbestos from defendant's product such that it was a substantial factor in the development of his mesothelioma.
01/19/2012 Summary judgment in favor of defendant denied because under Wisconsin's liberal standard for product identification, a reasonable jury could conclude that plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from defendant's product in connection with one (of twelve) contracts identified on a contract ledger maintained by defendant, such that this exposure was a substantial factor in the development of the decedent' mesothelioma; summary judgment in favor of defendant was granted as to all other allegations of exposure in connection with the remaining eleven contracts, as there was no indication of the location of the product within the employer's facility and/or no indication that the product supplied and/or installed by defendant in connection with those contracts contained asbestos.
01/19/2012 Summary judgment denied because genuine issue of material fact existed as to when plaintiff had notice that he may have a cause of action; plaintiff was told of a spot on his lung in November of 2006 as a result of an x-ray for an unrelated injury; plaintiff's diagnostic report was dated April 19, 2007. Plaintiff filed suit on April 12, 2010. Although plaintiff testified in 2011 that he learned of his lung cancer at Thanksgiving of 2006, the testimony was ambiguous and subject to multiple reasonable interpretations, such that the Court could not determine as a matter of law whether the action was timely filed.
12/16/2011 Partial summary judgment granted in favor of defendant on basis of sophisticated user defense under California law, where plaintiff's alleged exposure occurred aboard three (3) Navy ships over the course of three (3) decades, defendants presented expert testimony that Navy was aware of hazards of asbestos at time of alleged exposure aboard two (2) of the three (3) ships (and that Navy had state-of-the-art knowledge of asbestos hazards), and Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to contradict Defendant's evidence re: sophisticated user.
12/16/2011 Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant on basis of sophisticated user defense under California law, where plaintiff's alleged exposure occurred aboard Navy ships, defendants presented expert testimony that Navy was aware of hazards of asbestos at time of alleged exposure (and that Navy had state-of-the-art knowledge of asbestos hazards) and Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to contradict Defendant's evidence re: sophisticated user; court rejected argument that California law did not permit the defense because the Navy was an intermediary.
12/16/2011 Summary judgment is denied for Defendant. Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that, under maritime law, Decedent was exposed to asbestos attributable to Defendant and that it was a substantial factor in causing his disease. Additionally, Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether Defendant is entitled to the government contractor defense.
12/08/2011 Westlaw and LexisNexis have added the vast majority of decisions, footnote orders and opinions issued in MSL-875 to their searchable databases. This PDF contains information about how to search for such rulings.
12/07/2011 Plaintiff's expert report deemed inadmissible against Warren Pumps as it was produced in an "unsworn" form; without expert report, Plaintiff lacked sufficient product identification to withstand summary judgment.
12/07/2011 Plaintiff's expert report deemed inadmissible against Crane Co. as it was produced in an "unsworn" form; without expert report, Plaintiff lacked sufficient product identification to withstand summary judgment.
12/07/2011 Musselman case is remanded to the transferor court (District of Delaware), with a recommendation that it be transferred to the Eastern District of Arkansas for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
12/07/2011 Plaintiff's product identification evidence against New England Insulatoin deemed sufficient to withstand summary judgment; case remanded to the transferor court (District of Maine) because the issue of liability for bystander and/or "take-home" exposure has not been addressed by any court in Maine.
12/07/2011 Plaintiff's product identification evidence against Kimberly Clark deemed sufficient to withstand summary judgment; case remanded to the transferor court (District of Maine) because the issue of liability for bystander and/or "take-home" exposure has not been addressed by any court in Maine.
12/02/2011 As the LIA does not preclude plaintiffs from bringing federal FELA claims, summary judgment is denied for LIRR regarding Plaintiff's FELA claims.
12/02/2011 Granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment when Plaintiffs have presented no evidence of product identification.
12/02/2011 Denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment when Plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find, under California law, that Decedent had some threshold exposure to asbestos attributable to Defendant, and that the exposure was a substantial factor in contributing to Decedent's risk of developing mesothelioma.
12/01/2011 Denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment when Defendant's expert testimony regarding government prohibitions on warnings was not unduly speculative.
12/01/2011 Denying summary judgment when Plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant was entitled to the government contractor defense.
12/01/2011 Denying summary judgment when, under Florida law, a reasonable juror could conclude that Honeywell valves were a substantial contributing factor to Plaintiff's mesothelioma.
11/23/2011 Judge Robreno's 11/14/2011 Memorandum Opinion regarding AO 12 in CVLO cases.
10/03/2011 Judge Hey's Memorandum and Order partially granting non-party's request for fees and costs associated with the production of documents subpoenaed by Plaintiffs.
09/22/2011 Denying summary judgment as there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant's asbestos-containing products substantially caused Plaintiff's injury. (E.D. La.).
09/22/2011 Denying summary judgment in part, where joint compound contained Defendant's asbestos exclusively; and granting in part, when another joint compound contained asbestos from many manufacturers. (E.D. La.).
09/22/2011 Denying summary judgment as there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whethere Defendant's asbestos-containing roofing products were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm. (E.D. La.).
09/22/2011 Denying summary judgment in part, where Plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to whether Defendant's asbestos-containing products were a substantial factor in causing his harm; and granting summary judgment in part, where Plaintiff could not identify any specific products or brands for a given time period. (E.D. La.).
08/30/2011 Denying summary judgment as there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant is entitled to the government contractor defense. (Fed).
08/11/2011 Denying summary judgment as there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant's asbestos-containing clutches were a substantial contributing factor to Plaintiff's asbestos-related disease (PA).
08/11/2011 Granting summary judgment in favor of various brake pad manufacturers because Pennsylvania law requires product identification evidence with respect to each individual Defendant (PA).
08/11/2011 Denying summary judgment because there remains a genuine issue of material fact as to the application of Mississippi's learned intermediary defense with respect to the Navy (MS).
08/11/2011 Denying summary judgment because Defendant had a duty to warn of the hazards of asbestos-containing brakes incorporated into its vehicles (PA).
08/11/2011 Granting summary judgment because the product line exception does not apply (PA).
08/11/2011 Denying summary judgment as there is a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the application of the sophisticated user defense in a premises liability claim (PA).
08/11/2011 Denying summary judgment on the government contractor defense, as there is a genuine issue of material fact with respect to reasonably precise warnings for military vehicles (Fed).
08/11/2011 Applying the "heeding presumption" under New Jersey law and denying summary judgment on that basis (NJ).
08/11/2011 Denying Asbestos Corporation Limited's Motion to Dismiss as New Jersey has personal jurisdiction over Defendant (NJ).
08/11/2011 Denying Summary Judgment on the issue of whether Defendant had undertaken a duty to inspect the premises and did so negligently under Alabama law (AL).
07/26/2011 Memorandum Opinion regarding whether state or maritime law should apply to cases where plaintiff was exposed to asbestos while working on Naval ships.
07/26/2011 Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Georgia Pacific on product identification grounds (NC).
07/26/2011 Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Goulds Pumps on product identification grounds (NC).
07/26/2011 Denying Summary Judgment under the North Carolina statute of limitations (NC).
07/11/2011 Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Foster Wheeler because expert testimony alone is insufficient to establish causation. (maritime law)
07/11/2011 Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Union Carbide because insufficient evidence that the product at issue was asbestos-containing. (VA)
07/11/2011 Denying Honeywell's Motion for Summary Judgment on product identification grounds. (VA)
07/11/2011 Granting various Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment because expert testimony was not sworn to, and therefore not admissible under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). (MS)
06/30/2011 Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Foster Wheeler on Product Identification Grounds. (ND)
06/30/2011 Granting Summary Judgment in favor of General Electric on the Government Contractor Defense.
06/30/2011 Granting Summary Judgment in favor of S.O.S. Products Company on Product Identification Grounds (ND).
06/30/2011 Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) as Plaintiff failed to show excusable neglect.
06/03/2011 Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Certainteed on Product Identification Grounds. (MS)
06/03/2011 Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas because the "voluntary rule" requires that a voluntary act of plaintiff give rise to diversity jurisdiction; grant of summary judgment in favor of non-diverse defendant is not a basis for removal.
06/03/2011 Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Remand California state court because Defendant's notice of removal under the federal officer removal statute was not timely filed.
06/03/2011 Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to Oregon state court because the Court chooses to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the case in the absence of the removing government contractor defendant.
05/10/2011 Granting partial, but not full, summary judgment in favor of Defendant on the basis that Mississippi follows the two-diease rule, and the statute of limitations periods are separate, regardless of the order of diagnoses. (MS)
05/06/2011 Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant because even under FELA's relaxed summary judgment standard, there must be some specific evidence of exposure; it is not enough simply to place both Plaintiff and asbestos at the worksite. (FELA)
05/06/2011 Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant because Plaintiff's own interrogatories cannot be reduced to an admissible form and therefore cannot be used to create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of surviving summary judgment. (FELA)
05/06/2011 Denying Motion for Reconsideration on the determination that Virginia is a one-disease state. (Virginia)
05/06/2011 Denying Defendant's Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification. (Florida)
05/06/2011 Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on product identification, and examining the effect of leading questions by Plaintiff's attorney during a deposition under Federal Rule of Evidence 611(c). (Utah)
05/06/2011 Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on product identification, but denying that a previous New York court decision regarding corporate liability precluded Plaintiff's claim. (Utah)
05/06/2011 Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment despite a deposition transcript error that misspelled Defendant's name. (Utah)
05/06/2011 Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment due to lack of evidence that Defendant actually manufactured the type of product described by Plaintiff. (Utah)
04/14/2011 Denying Defendant Premises Owner's Motion for Summary Judgment as the question of whether asbestos was an inherently dangerous condition in this case should go to the jury. (North Carolina)
04/14/2011 Granting in part and Denying in part Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on affirmative defenses (North Carolina)
03/18/2011 Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss based on the Statute of Limitations as Virginia has not Adopted the "Two-Disease" Rule (VA)
03/17/2011 Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Remand based on Timeliness of Removal, Disclaimer of Federal Officer claims, and the Presence of a Colorable Government Contractor Defense (CA)
03/08/2011 Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment because the North Carolina statute of repose does not apply to latent disease cases (NC)
03/08/2011 Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's intentional tort claim against employer for asbestos exposure (OH-S)
03/08/2011 Granting Defendant Viacom's Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that maritime law recognizes the "bare metal" defense (FL-N)
02/25/2011 Granting Partial Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant on the Issue of a Duty of Inquiry for Statute of Limitations Purposes in FELA Claims (Illinois)
02/25/2011 Denying Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion based on Boilerplate Language in Release Agreement (Illinois)
02/11/2011 Applying the "Nerve Center" Test to a Small Corporation to Determine Citizenship (California)
02/11/2011 Denial of the Application of the Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine (Illinois)
02/11/2011 Texas Worker's Compensation Law does not bar tort claims for pre-1971 exposures, when Mesothelioma was not compensable under the statute (Texas)
01/28/2011 Texas Worker's Compensation Law does not bar tort claims for pre-1971 exposures, when Mesothelioma was not compensable under the statute (Texas)
01/28/2011 Denial of Crane Co.'s Motion for Summary Judgment on Product Identification/Causation Grounds(Delaware)
01/03/2011 Decision Regarding use of Depositions when Defendant was not Present under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1)(Maryland)
01/03/2011 Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on the Grounds that the Insurer of an Independent Contractor does not Undertake a Duty to Protect Non-Employees (Florida)
01/03/2011 Application of the Sham Affidavit Doctrine Precluding the use of Plaintiff's Product Identification Evidence (Idaho)
01/03/2011 Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Product Identification based on Son's Testimony regarding Father's Brakework (Florida)
12/10/2010 Decision Granting Summary Judgment for Defendant based on Product Identification (Maryland)
12/10/2010 Decision Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment based on Product Identification (West Virginia)
12/02/2010 Please Note that Punitive Damages are Severed from MDL 875 and the Court will not Consider any Motions on the Issue of Punitive Damages. See In Re Collins, 233 F.3d 809 (3d Cir. 2000).
11/22/2010 Memorandum Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment based on Premises Liability (Washington)
11/22/2010 Memorandum Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment based on Premises Liability (Pennsylvania)
11/08/2010 Memorandum Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in Happel v. Yarway Corp. (Delaware)
11/08/2010 Memorandum Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in Happel v. GE (Delaware)
11/08/2010 Order Denying Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert from Testifying that Every Asbestos Exposure Contributes to Mesothelioma (Schumacher v. American Biltrite, E.D. Pa)
10/29/2010 Memorandum Overruling Defendant CBS Corporation's Objections in Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps(Florida)
10/29/2010 Memorandum Overruling Defendant General Electric's Objections but Granting Summary Judgment on the Government Contractor Defense in Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps(Florida)
10/29/2010 Memorandum Overruling Defendant Warren Pumps LLC's Objections in Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps(Florida)
10/20/2010 Memorandum Overruling Defendant Leslie Controls, Inc.'s Objections in Constantinides v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (Florida)
10/20/2010 Magistrate Judge Rueter Memorandum Opinion Denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Settlement Agreements
10/01/2010 Decision denying remand to state court when removal is based on the federal officer defense
09/10/2010 Third Circuit decision in Kurns v. Chesterton, Inc. holding that the Locomotive Inspection Act preempts state law claims
08/01/2010 Memorandum overruling Crane Co.'s objections to the R&R in Gitto v. A.W. Chesterton et al.
08/01/2010 Memorandum granting defendant's motion to dismiss in Texas cases for failure to file Chapter 90 reports
07/01/2010 Footnote order issued by Judge Robreno denying a motion to certify a remand order for appeal
06/08/2010 Memorandum issued by Magistrate Judge Hey denying a motion to quash a deposition subpoena served on Plaintiff's diagnosing physician in the case of Fellows v. Allied Glove (N.D. Oh., June 7, 2010)
06/08/2010 Memorandum issued by Magistrate Judge Angell ruling on motions in limine and Daubert challenges in the case of Larson v. Bondex International (D. Utah, May 26, 2010)
06/08/2010 Report and Recommendation denying GE's motion for summary judgment in the case of Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps (S.D. Fl., June 2, 2010)
06/08/2010 Report and Recommendation denying Leslie Control's motion for summary judgment in the case of Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps (S.D. Fl., May 21, 2010)
06/08/2010 Report and Recommendation denying CBS' motion for summary judgment in the case of Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps (S.D. Fl., April 30, 2010)
06/08/2010 Report and Recommendation granting Elliot Turbomachinery's motion for summary judgment in the case of Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps (S.D. Fl., April 26, 2010)
06/08/2010 Report and Recommendation granting in part and denying in part Warren Pumps' motion for summary judgment in the case of Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps (S.D. Fl., April 26, 2010)
06/08/2010 Report and Recommendation denying Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment in the case of Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps (S.D. Fl., April 23, 2010)
06/08/2010 Report and Recommendation granting Elliot Turbomachinery's motion for summary judgment in the case of Constantinides v. Alfa Laval (S.D. Fl., April 27, 2010)
06/08/2010 Report and Recommendation granting Viad Corp.'s motion for summary judgment in the case of Constantinides v. Alfa Laval (S.D. Fl., April 27, 2010)
06/08/2010 Report and Recommendation denying Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment in the case of Constantinides v. Alfa Laval (S.D. Fl., April 27, 2010)
06/08/2010 Report and Recommendation denying CBS' motion for summary judgment in the case of Constantinides v. Alfa Laval (S.D. Fl., April 27, 2010)
04/06/2010 Order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in the Anderson v. Alfa Laval case
04/05/2010 Memorandum and Order granting defendants' motion to dimiss on the New Jersey "dual capacity" doctrine for workers' compensation claims
02/12/2010 Order denying plaintiffs' motion to remand in a group of cases from North Dakota
02/12/2010 Order granting defendant Georgia Pacific's motion for summary judgment in a S.D. Fl. case
12/21/2009 Order granting defendant Atlas Turner's motion for summary judgment in an E.D. Pa. case [Phillips 00-6359] for January Trial Pool
12/10/2009 Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion to remand in a group of Southern District of Mississippi cases
12/03/2009 Memorandum and Order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment in an E.D. Va. case
11/19/2009 Order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment in an E.D. Pa. case
08/17/2009 Memorandum and Order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment in a N.D. Ga. premises liability case
06/22/2009 Order remanding Illinois case directly to Illinois State Court for lack of Federal subject matter jurisdiction
04/30/2009 Memorandum and order denying certain plaintiffs motion to alter or amend Administrative Orders 3, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16
03/11/2009 Order regarding jurisdiction over a federal enclave
02/24/2009 Memorandum and order on subpoenas issued to various doctors
12/18/2008 Memorandum and order on rules to show cause for failure to comply with Administrative Order No. 12


Please read the Document Tips before accessing documents. These documents are saved in PDF format.
If you do not have Adobe® Reader® installed on your computer, you can download it for free here:
Get Adobe Reader