Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01567/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01567-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 368
Nature of Suit: Asbestos Personal Injury - Prod.liab.
Cause of Action: 

---

1

14cv1567 BTM(BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GAIL ELIZABETH WALASHEK, 

Individually and as successor-ininterest to THE ESTATE OF 

MICHAEL WALASHEK and THE 

ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER 

LINDEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ASBESTOS CORPORATION 

LIMITED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 14cv1567 BTM(BGS)

ORDER GRANTING CRANE 

CO.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

On May 27, 2015, Crane Co. filed a motion for summary judgment against 

Plaintiffs. On June 29, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition to Crane 

Co.’s motion. 

On June 17, 2014, Plaintiffs commenced this wrongful death and survival 

action in state court. The Complaint alleges that Michael Walshek’s exposure to 

asbestos and asbestos-containing products while he was employed at the National 

Steel & Shipbuilding Co., resulted in severe and permanent injury and ultimately 

death. On June 27, 2014, this action was removed to federal court. 

Case 3:14-cv-01567-BTM-BGS Document 275 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 3
2

14cv1567 BTM(BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Crane Co. moves for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiffs cannot 

show that the decedent was exposed to asbestos released from a product for 

which Crane Co. is legally responsible. In support of its motion, Crane Co. points 

to Plaintiffs’ discovery responses. When responding to Crane Co.’s special 

interrogatories and document requests, Plaintiffs failed to identify any specific 

documents supporting Plaintiffs’ contention that Mr. Walashek was exposed to 

asbestos-containing products for which Crane Co. is legally responsible. (Exs. BE.) 

When asked to identify persons with knowledge of Mr. Walashek’s exposure 

to asbestos from Crane Co. products, Plaintiffs identified Jim Doud, Ron Gray, 

Frank Walashek, “witnesses being identified in Plaintiffs’ discovery and 

investigation,” Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, and Crane Co.’s Person Most 

Knowledgeable and/or corporate representatives and/or employees/former 

employees. (Resp. to Special Interrogatory No. 2 (Ex. D).) However, Crane Co. 

deposed Mr. Doud, Mr. Gray, and Mr. Frank Walashek, and none of these 

witnesses provided evidence that Mr. Walashek encountered any asbestoscontaining material made, sold, or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce 

by Crane Co. (Exs. 7, 8, 9.) 

Crane Co. has satisfied its initial burden of production on summary judgment 

by showing that Plaintiffs have insufficient evidence of an essential element of their 

Case 3:14-cv-01567-BTM-BGS Document 275 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 3
3

14cv1567 BTM(BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

case – i.e., that Mr. Walashek was exposed to Crane Co.’s asbestos-containing 

product. Therefore, the burden shifts to Plaintiffs, who must produce enough 

evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 

477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence in opposition 

to the motion and have instead filed a notice of non-opposition. 

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Crane Co.’s motion for summary judgment 

[Doc. 210] against Plaintiffs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2015

Case 3:14-cv-01567-BTM-BGS Document 275 Filed 07/23/15 Page 3 of 3