Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_06-cv-00899/USCOURTS-alnd-2_06-cv-00899-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 368
Nature of Suit: Asbestos Personal Injury - Prod.liab.
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation

---

Docs. 24, 37, 40, 45, 48, 49, 50, 56, 57, 58, 61, 63, 66, 69, 75, 80, 81, 91, 97. 1

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

VERA . BEAVERS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

A. O. SMITH ELECTRICAL

PRODUCTS COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action Number

 2:06-cv-899-UWC

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Presently before the Court are numerous motions to dismiss. Upon review 1

of the complaint and the motions to dismiss, the Court finds this action should be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

The nearly 100 individual Plaintiffs allege that they have been injured by

exposure to asbestos manufactured or utilized by the various Defendants.

Jurisdiction is premised on diversity of citizenship.

The motions to dismiss raise several issues, several of them having

FILED

 2006 Aug-31 PM 05:10

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:06-cv-00899-UWC Document 122 Filed 08/31/06 Page 1 of 3
 These deficiencies could probably be cured by a severance of the Plaintiffs and an 2

amended complaint in each of the new cases.

Page 2 of 3

substantial merit. First, it does not appear that all of claims arise out of the same

transaction or occurrence. Further, the complaint does not specifically link specific

causes of action to a specific Defendant. Moreover, to the extent that fraud

allegations are made, they are not pled with the specificity required by the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Finally, the complaint does not allege the dates of exposure

to asbestos, or the dates on which the Plaintiffs discovered their injuries - allegations

quite probative in a statute of limitations defense. 

2

But the most compelling reason requiring the dismissal of this action is the

simple fact that diversity jurisdiction is absent. It is clear that at least one Plaintiff

and at least one Defendant are citizens of the state of California. (See Compl. §§ 16,

113.) Additionally, at least one Plaintiff and one Defendant are citizens of the state

of Georgia. (See Compl. §§ 15, 133.)

For want of diversity jurisdiction, the Complaint must be dismissed.

______________________________

 U.W. Clemon

 Chief United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00899-UWC Document 122 Filed 08/31/06 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case 2:06-cv-00899-UWC Document 122 Filed 08/31/06 Page 3 of 3