me please the court i'm just five parker appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs in this case the plaintiffs appealed from two lower court orders one was an order granting northrop's motion to dismiss and one was in order denying cleaners motion to file an amended complaint take the first order the upshot of the court's order granting supreme court opinion plaintiffs believe that the lower court erred in granting the defendants twelve the six motion on the basis of this authority for the simple reason that bach rath is a case that deals with how to properly allege a product liability kit claim under california law and plaintiff's allegations subsumed more than product liability claims they also subsumed a premises liability claim and a claim based on negligent honor and i can get to that but because we appealed it anywhere you want but if you think you fixed everything in the first amended yes let's go to that so point of do you believe we fixed everything the first amendment amended complaint the upshot of the court's holding in denying our request to file an amended complaint was that it would have been futile to allow us to do so because our proposed amended a complaint didn't repair the defects that were present in the originals and specifically according to the court we failed to meet bock rats injunction to identify each product that allegedly caused the plaintiffs injury it's plaintiff's position that that's incorrect because bach grass does not require more than identifying the categories of defective products to which the point if was exposed in other words the case doesn't require that the plaintiffs identify products by manufacture by part number or by any other specific conduct the other than the category of the product and there are a couple comments within the backcross decision that are suggestive in that regard at penn site page seventy seven records says that the plaintiffs you named at least fifty five defendants including manufacturers of common products such as w d forty and rubber cement and he alleged that these that the disease arose through his exposure to harmful substances in these products the court didn't have a problem with the plaintiffs allegation that he was exposed to rubber cement in the decision the courts issue with the plaintiffs allegations was he didn't connect the defendant to a product and  then the product to a specific talks and that caused his disease i just asked it just because i don't know if you're talking about the products liability claim right now are you talking about the product liability claim yes your honor it seems like you know these kind of claims more understandable for premises liability i'm trying to figure out why if you are pursuing these claims against  seems like your claims are based only on north of use of as best as containing products and here it doesn't look like northrop itself manufactured a defective vestals containing product can so i'm just trying to figure out how that products liability claim can be premised something on a company's use of the defective products in the course of its business thank you your honor yes california law subscribes to a stream of commerce theory for attributing product liability defendin so under that and being a defendant can be liable if certain policies apply to their position with respect to a product within the stream of commerce that position can be that they manufactured it that they designed it that they marketed a product that they leased it so it's very broad what what's your best authority on that i mean because it seems interesting to me because when you did try to rectify your site you dropped all the people out who actually did and you factor design examiner so i don't understand what's your reasoning there my understanding as to why that happened was that my office was trying to focus specifically on the defendant we think that we have the strongest case against her premises well for premises liability but we also believe we have a case against it under california law for product liability because we believe that in purchasing these various airline products that were defective and using those products in the construction of their of their aircraft they were profiting off of it and we believe that the authority supports give me your best authority on that sure your honor we didn't cite this in our putting go ahead the california court of fourth circuit excuse me fourth district court of appeal decision of a summit community association versus shell oil company determining whether or not a company can be in the stream of commerce for a product that it neither manufactured nor sold the facts before that court was that shell oil company marketed a defective plumbing system that's all they did was market date and the court found that because it was profiting off of the marketing of this defective plumbing system that it was sufficiently connected to the defect to have product liability law apply two forty three callout fourth two forty nine in that case is sub contractor was found strictly liable for supplying defective especially as containing dry wall  the undertaking of its contracts and the supply wasn't that it was giving it to a third party was actually using this stuff and the pursuant to a general contract and the plaintiff was exposed as a bystander  the state of california law prior to cashmere was that it was an open question as to whether a employer ody duty of care to the family members of employees to prevent their take home exposure to asbestos to prevent the exposure to asbestos brought home on the persons of their employees it was an open question in california law there was a split authority on that issue california's supreme court brought granted review on two cases  versus superior court and heaver vs the n s f railway and in the end the california supreme court decision they expressed we disapproved of the campbell court's analysis campbell found that a clear odes no duty to the family members of employees to prevent their take home exposure to a specialist the court found has no record found to the contrary that a proper analysis of the public policy factors the court looks to in determining whether to accept to accept a category of cases from the usual duty of care supports and this is a direct quote supports the conclusion that defendants have a duty of ordinary care to prevent take home especially this exposure and the court went on to find that this is true whether the plaintiffs theory sounds in premises liability or general negligence so we believe campbell does not stand as authority which would prevent a plaintiff's premises liability or their negligence claims in this case and so to the extent that this court would have been otherwise inclined to uphold the lower court's decision on campbell casmir sounds stands as authority against that i'll reserve my time and have one know was part of that but i don't know didn't seem like that company is no longer a party to the lawsuit would there still be federal jurisdiction you're on or off the top of my head i don't know on what basis united technologies removed i don't know if it removed on federal office or defense or if it removed based on diversity jurisdiction so i'm not sure sure ok the answer to that thank you thank you your hon the court daniel j kelly of tucker ellis on behalf of northrop grumman systems corporation and i think i can address a couple of the issues scuse me there are two causes of action that were were alleged to general series and the primary problem that we saw with the original complaint and with the proposed a medical flight is that the plaintiffs tried to lump together product liability claims and promises liability claims and by alleging that everyone did everything  they made a resulted with a very vague pleading that didn't say anything about anyone in particular and i think it's very clear that the original complaint didn't state a cause of action for either under either theory and  best this product liability cases is a product identification is the starting point what do you requiring though i mean it seems like you take issue with the fact that plant has only identified defective products in their complaint by using terms like engine that he says are valves and you know you kind of characterize them as broad and generic categories but i'm not quite sure what our claims is supposed to do in these kind of cases and what kind of specificity should we require i'm not sure that we're supposed to require that they use the brand name or the model number or serial numbers what is it that you're what's what's the mark there i think the idea here is identifying a sit with head of specificity so that the person who manufactured or sold that product understands that's what the client what should they have so in the original the original complaint if they had said that northrop grumman manufactured military aircraft then they'd be talking about a northrop product now what they did identify was a lot of other products that were present at allegedly present at the northrop facilities now in talking about facilities and this is why these two kind of come together a bit in talking about facilities they said various facilities throughout california southern california without any specified is that's a fist city the actual locations so and in in the allegations the complaint of the original complaint they did say that certain entities manufactured break certain entities manufactured engines certain entities manufactured other equipment and that that would be sufficient if they were talking about a claim against those particular entities when they got around to north of the basic idea was because all these other products we believe were present somewhere at a north or basilica that means northrop is now responsible for all of those products under a products liability claim and that's why it's very important that it  does not state a product liability claim and a consumer of a product if you assume that northrop bought a product and used it that that is not that does not make northrop strictly liable for that product that they bought not the premises slime now and that's that's why i think it's important to keep track of these as a separate way on the premises liability claim if a and especially this product is present on a in a particular location and it then is if it's just merely present there under california law that's not a defect it's not a dangerous condition it's nothing it's only when it becomes disturbed or otherwise the fibers are released from that product that it can become a dangerous condition and i think it's very important that when we first brought the motions it was based on this story of campbell which has nor has it has disavowed but the important ruling in the cases in from the california supreme court is that active users and industrial users of a specified on their premises in the mid one nine hundred seventy s are held to know that that could create a potential exposure that for a third party exposure that then on the close could be carried home because that's what the this claim is it's a take home exposure claim that workers at northrop then got dust on their clothes and took them home to the to the maize family home so the important thing there though is the fact that even in cases where they talk about they weren't making a decision about a passive consumer of a specif that wasn't the allegations in havior which was the earlier northern the n s f case they talked about the allegations were and they had accept those as true the court accept those as true was that that the railroad was actively using its best as in its production of locomotives and other work on in the yards and that the employee who was working with them was actually working with those products and therefore dust on their clothes now in this case the allegation is that and this was not in the written complaint but in the amended complaint which i'm focusing on because i don't believe the amended complaint fix the problems from the first complaint was that titus may a locksmith work an owner of a premises can understand that that could be dangerous someone could slip on that the difference here is by just saying that products were present without connecting the look at what they say i mean it seems like testers at the premises northrop was or should have been aware of the dangers of air blown asbestos and northrop failed failure to recently protect its employees from our bone as fast as exposure and to protect its employees from carrying as best a home on their clothes ultimately eighty paragraph thirty seven to say that he regularly as a locksmith he regularly cut disassembled removed tore apart otherwise manipulated as best as containing fire doors which causes best to stick it in the air i mean how are they supposed how much more do you want them to connect the dots well i think most importantly that's the closest they come to an allegation of a fire door being present on the north or premises and the question is they say the relevant premises without saying where those are there's a listing of edwards know where they worked so i don't think they have to absolutely identify that every specific thing but if someone says i was a locksmith and i was working on fire doors he should know where it was he was working and when you put it all together in say somewhere in southern california he was working on fire doors it becomes that much more difficult to state a cause of action as to even if he's working on a fire door unless the allegation is that that fire contained it's best as northrup knew it contained as best as northrup knew that the dust was coming out and i would suspect too that the allegations would be later in time because there is a continuum of time where even if it's present and even if it releases fibers that's not a premises liability claim it's not a strict liability claim just because there are products that are present on the premises and i do think that's why i believe that they are closer on the premises liability claims but the idea that northrop as a an entity that has products that are on premises thereby become strictly responsible and strictly liable as if it were actively marketing or or selling the stream of commerce that that's not that that is not a clear case that has been alleged a claim that's been alleged properly in either place so it would urge that i believe that the trial court was correct in determining that the product liability claims cannot lie under these facts as alleged and on the question that the court had asked about the reason for removal it was removed under federal officer liability but now that the only defendant that's left is north of there is diversity so it still belongs in federal court i would also add on the fairly recent case that talked about and entity that was in the business of building facilities and they used dry wall that contained a specificity the argument was they were a service provider they weren't a selling that product because they were so closely associated with bringing that product in and installing it so where they were held strictly liable that doesn't mean that if a fire doors purchased and installed on the premises at northrop somewhere that northrop then becomes strictly liable for that fire door so  i believe that that that addresses the primary issues that we've said i think the court certainly in the first instance found that the original complaint did not state cause of action for either and i believe that they were not corrected in the in the complaint as to the premises liability because we do know that the plaintiffs themselves have specific information about where they worked and when they work there and it does make a difference under caisson or although before the forecaster came down it was there was no duty so therefore you really didn't have to get into the details because the plaintiffs have this information and they're not working with a totally clean slate because they have alleged already what products were there and who manufacture them if they're claiming that as a locksmith mr may was countered certain products we should be able to say at least in a general lay went in where and right now there's northrop grumman is a large corporation and there's a number these facilities that are no longer owned by northrop and so it's it's important to know where these planes are coming from because if they're older in time and they're and it's just that they happen to be in the same place that's not sufficient so to connect those dots they do need to be a little more specific about it without submit your  thank you your honors i'd just like to address a couple points that counsel me first he made the point that there just simply wasn't enough specificity in our complaint our proposed amended complaint for them to know the products that we were attempting to hold them accountable for as a aircraft manufacturer it's our position that that's simply not correct that the categories of products that we say in our complaint are defective were sufficient under baka counsel said that as a simply having the products on their facility isn't enough to hold them liable under product liability theory counsel mentioned hernandez  a contractor who was supplying products while it was doing a service and he mentioned that in that case they were closely connected enough with facilitating the presence of these defective products on the market for them to be held liable in that case they were in a manufacture they were designer we believe that in the now analogous analysis would apply to their purchase of defective products and used for profit of those products in building their aircraft to hold them liable under a product liability theory under california law the second claim that counsel made was that somehow required active work with a defective product in order for its duty analysis to apply apply that's not correct does not require that a plaintive actively work with this festus on premises in order for the premises owner to be liable under a premises liability theory third counsel said that we didn't allege the mechanism of exposure with enough specificity in order for a claim to lie in that regard i'd like to just cite to the court which was provided in our reply papers the case of it's a mere florida your honor and finally counsel says that we didn't give enough information on the location of the alleged exposure to  asbestos in a northward facility paragraph ten of our proposed amend amended complaint lists with the tail and addresses the northrop facilities where the plaintiff worked and with respect to identifying which specific of those facilities he was exposed to which specific defective product i'd like to cite the court to win versus general electric corp it's a two thousand and fourteen northern district of california opinion in denying a twelve b six motion in that case which was in a specialist personal injury case premised on the plaintiff's exposure to defective especially those parts in submarines the court says to require plaintiffs know exactly which vessels defendants worked on or which vessels lead to plenty of suspects just exposure is to add too much at this stage of the litigation these facts fall on will most likely be found in defendant's own records and plaintiffs are not required to plead them with such specificity we believe that the same applies to the specific northrup locations to which the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos and therefore i believe that our complaint was sufficient to give them notice of the nature of our