Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01567/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01567-7/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

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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.

AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS 

COPRORATION, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: 14cv1567 BTM(BGS)

ORDER GRANTING CLEAVERBROOKS, INC.’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. (“Cleaver-Brooks”), has filed a Motion for 

Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS CleaverBrooks’ motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On March 24, 2014, Plaintiffs commenced this wrongful death and survival 

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

The Complaint alleges that Michael Walashek’s exposure to asbestos and 

Case 3:14-cv-01567-BTM-BGS Document 418 Filed 05/24/16 Page 1 of 8
2

14cv1567 BTM(BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

asbestos-containing products, in the course of performing his work for various 

employers from 1967 through 1986, caused him to suffer severe and permanent 

injury and ultimately death. The Complaint asserts claims of negligence and strict 

liability.

II. STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure if the moving party demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of 

material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. 

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A fact is material when, under the governing 

substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir. 

1997). A dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the 

nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.

A party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial burden of 

establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 

323. The moving party can satisfy this burden in two ways: (1) by presenting 

evidence that negates an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case; or 

(2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed to establish an essential 

element of the nonmoving party’s case on which the nonmoving party bears the 

burden of proving at trial. Id. at 322-23. "Disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary 

facts will not preclude a grant of summary judgment." T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. 

Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987).

Once the moving party establishes the absence of genuine issues of material 

fact, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth facts showing that a 

genuine issue of disputed fact remains. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 314. The nonmoving 

party cannot oppose a properly supported summary judgment motion by “rest[ing] 

on mere allegations or denials of his pleadings.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. When 

Case 3:14-cv-01567-BTM-BGS Document 418 Filed 05/24/16 Page 2 of 8
3

14cv1567 BTM(BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ruling on a summary judgment motion, the court must view all inferences drawn 

from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs claim that Walashek was exposed to asbestos attributable to 

Cleaver-Brooks as a result of his work on Cleaver-Brooks boilers. However, as 

discussed below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ evidence falls short of creating a 

triable issue of fact with respect to Walashek’s exposure to asbestos attributable 

to Cleaver-Brooks.

1. Threshold Exposure

In asbestos-related latent injury cases, the plaintiff “must first establish some 

threshold exposure to the defendant’s defective asbestos-containing products.” 

Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal. 4th 953, 982 (1997). The plaintiff bears 

the burden of proof on the issue of threshold exposure. McGonnell v. Kaiser 

Gypsum Co., Inc., 98 Cal. App. 4th 1098, 1103 (2002). “If there has been no 

exposure, there is no causation.” Id. 

“The mere ‘possibility’ of exposure does not create a triable issue of fact.” 

Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 138 Cal. App. 4th 96, 108 (2006). “It is not 

enough to produce just some evidence. The evidence must be of sufficient quality 

to allow the trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the 

motion for summary judgment.” McGonnell, 98 Cal. App. 4th at 1105. “‘[P]roof 

that raises mere speculation, suspicion, surmise, guess or conjecture is not 

enough to sustain [the plaintiff’s] burden’ of persuasion.” Izell v. Union Carbide 

Corp., 231 Cal. App. 4th 962, 969 (2014) (quoting Ulwelling v. Crown Coach Corp., 

206 Cal. App. 2d 96, 104-05 (1962)).

Case 3:14-cv-01567-BTM-BGS Document 418 Filed 05/24/16 Page 3 of 8
4

14cv1567 BTM(BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. Cleaver-Brooks Establishes an Absence of Genuine Issue of Material 

Fact

In response to an interrogatory asking Plaintiffs to identify and describe all 

products manufactured, distributed or supplied by Cleaver-Brooks which 

Walashek worked with or near, Plaintiffs responded: “Plaintiffs contend that 

Decedent MICHAEL WALASHEK worked with and around materials that were 

designed, manufactured, and/or distributed by the following entities: CLEAVER 

BROOKS INC. (for Cleaver Brooks distilling plants and Davis Heaters).” (Def. Ex. 

C at 4.) 

In response to an interrogatory asking Plaintiffs to identify the date(s) and 

location(s) where MICHAEL WALASHEK worked with or around each product, 

Plaintiffs responded, “Plaintiffs identify the late 1960’s and 1970’s where decedent 

worked in around ships and shipyards which contain said equipment.” (Id. at 6.)

When asked to describe how Walashek was exposed to asbestos from work 

with or around the product, Plaintiffs responded: “After a reasonable and good 

faith inquiry, Plaintiff have no further information responsive to this Interrogatory at 

this time.” (Id. at 7.) Plaintiffs gave the same response to an interrogatory asking 

them for their basis for contending that asbestos-containing materials were 

manufactured or supplied by Cleaver-Brooks. (Id.)

In their Initial Disclosures, Plaintiffs did not indicate that they personally had 

any information regarding the liability of Cleaver-Brooks. (Def. Ex. B at 2.) 

Plaintiffs identified Frank Walashek, Ron Gray, and Jim Doud as witnesses who 

worked with Walashek at various times and had knowledge of products he worked 

with and around that caused him to be exposed to asbestos. (Id. at 2-3.)

Jim Doud testified that he had information regarding work Walashek 

performed on land-based sites beginning in 1984, when Doud became a field 

construction superintendent at Fraser Boiler. (Doud Dep. at 37:1-23.) Doud 

Case 3:14-cv-01567-BTM-BGS Document 418 Filed 05/24/16 Page 4 of 8
5

14cv1567 BTM(BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

recalled assigning Walashek to perform work on Cleaver-Brooks land-based 

boilers in Eastern Washington but could not recall specific job sites. (Doud Dep.

at 279:3-19.) The only time that Walashek might have worked on the CleaverBrooks boilers in Eastern Washingtion, to Doud’s knowledge, was between Easter 

of 1984 and when Walashek left Fraser in 1986. (Id. at 354:19-355:14.)

Doud thought that Walashek might have worked with Cleaver-Brooks DA 

tanks during the period from 1981-1986. (Id. at 350:6-13.) However, Doud did not 

personally ever see Walashek working with DA tanks and did not have any reason 

to believe that any work he did with DA tanks exposed him to asbestos. (Id. at 

350:14-19.) 

Doud testified that by the time he was making assignments in 1984, he and 

Walashek were thoroughly aware that there needed to be special handling for any 

materials that potentially contained asbestos. (Id. at 28:13-19.) Walashek was 

always instructed to make sure that he take all necessary precautions to ensure 

that he was not exposed to asbestos. (Id. at 28:17-23.) According to Doud, by 

1981, “we had all been made aware and trained in personal protective equipment.” 

(Id. at 228:22-24.) In 1980-1981, Fraser, the union hall, and the industry itself 

“became very emphatic, told us to start wearing respirators and Tyvek coveralls 

and to make sure that we never installed an asbestos gasket or asbestos material.” 

(Id. at 145:2-9.)

Ron Gray recalled working with Walashek on land-based Cleaver-Brooks 

boilers in Eastern Washington and Idaho between 1981 and 1985. (Gray Dep. at 

601:16-602:1.) During his deposition, Gray recalled doing work with Walashek on 

Cleaver-Brooks boilers at a Boeing plant, an Ore-Ida potato factory, a school in 

Eastern Washington, and another plant in Eastern Washington. (Id. at 602:12-

606:9.) Later in his deposition, Gray testified that might be “guessing” about who 

manufactured the boiler at the Ore-Ida plant and “cannot tell you that it was a 

Cleaver-Brooks,” did not know if the boiler at the unidentified plant was a CleaverCase 3:14-cv-01567-BTM-BGS Document 418 Filed 05/24/16 Page 5 of 8
6

14cv1567 BTM(BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Brooks boiler, and was assuming the boiler at Boeing was a Cleaver-Brooks boiler 

because he generally associated fire tube boilers with Cleaver-Brooks. (Id. at 

663:12-665:10; 623:1-625:8.)

Gray states that he learned of the dangers of asbestos in 1976 or 1977. (Id.

at 36:9-13.) He recalls learning that asbestos particles could stick in your lungs 

and cause cancer. (Id. at 36:21-37:5.) He believes that he heard 

recommendations to wear respiratory protection when working around potentially 

asbestos-containing products prior to 1978. (Id. at 38:23-39:5.) He also recalls 

asbestos-abatement programs starting in the early 1980’s. (Id. at 47:21-25.) 

Gray thought he and Walashek may have worked on Cleaver-Brooks boilers 

on Coast Guard ships between 1974-1978. (Id. at 612:16-25.) However, Gray 

admitted that he was not certain that the boilers on the Coast Guard ships were 

Cleaver-Brooks boilers and was relying on his “vague memory.” (Id. at 617:6-11.) 

Gray confirmed that he had no knowledge that Walashek or anyone in his 

presence disturbed any asbestos-containing material in the course of working on 

those ships. (Id. at 613:23-614:2.) Gray also testified that he had no information 

that Walashek was ever exposed to asbestos that originated with Cleaver-Brooks. 

(Id. at 619:1-4.)

Frank Walashek testified that he did not recall if there was ever an occasion 

where he and his brother encountered a Cleaver-Brooks boiler. (Frank Walashek 

Dep. at 273:21-24.) He also testified that he was not aware of his brother ever 

being exposed to any asbestos that came from Cleaver-Brooks. (Id. at 277:6-22.)

Based on Plaintiffs’ discovery responses and the deposition testimony 

discussed above, the Court finds that Cleaver-Brooks has satisfied its initial burden 

of production on its motion for summary judgment by establishing the absence of 

a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of threshold exposure. From 1981 

onwards, it appears that Walashek and other boilermakers were warned of the 

hazards of working with materials potentially containing asbestos and were 

Case 3:14-cv-01567-BTM-BGS Document 418 Filed 05/24/16 Page 6 of 8
7

14cv1567 BTM(BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

instructed to take necessary precautions. As for the period before 1981, there is 

insufficient evidence that Walashek worked with Cleaver-Brooks boilers or other 

asbestos-containing Cleaver-Brooks equipment. 

3. Plaintiffs Fail to Create a Genuine Issue of Material Fact

Because Cleaver-Brooks has carried its initial burden of production, the 

burden shifts to Plaintiffs, who must produce enough evidence to create a genuine 

issue of material fact. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. The Court concludes that 

Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden.

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs rely on the 

deposition testimony of Ron Gray regarding Walashek’s work on Cleaver-Brooks 

boilers in Eastern Washington and Idaho sometime between 1981 and 1985, and 

his work on Cleaver-Brooks boilers on Coast Guard ships from 1974 to 1978. 

Plaintiffs also rely on the deposition testimony of Jim Doud regarding assigning 

Walashek to work on Cleaver-Brooks boilers in Eastern Washington. (Opp. at 3-

4.) 

With respect to any work Walashek performed on Cleaver-Brooks boilers 

from 1981 on, the evidence shows that asbestos abatement procedures were in 

place, and employees, including Walashek, were instructed to take necessary 

precautions, such as wearing respirators and Tyvek coveralls, to ensure that they 

were not exposed to asbestos. In their Opposition, Plaintiffs do not dispute that 

from 1981 on, boilermakers were made aware and trained in the hazards of 

asbestos. (Opp. at 7.) Plaintiffs have not introduced evidence that in fact 

Walashek was not instructed to wear protective gear and did not do so. Instead, 

Plaintiffs argue that prior to 1981, boilermakers were not made aware and trained 

in personal protective equipment. (Id.) Therefore, the Court finds that there is no 

genuine issue of material fact with respect to exposure to asbestos attributable to 

Cleaver-Brooks from 1981 forward.

Case 3:14-cv-01567-BTM-BGS Document 418 Filed 05/24/16 Page 7 of 8
8

14cv1567 BTM(BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The only evidence regarding Walashek working with Cleaver-Brooks boilers 

before 1981 is testimony of Gray regarding the work on Coast Guard ships 

between 1974 to 1978. However, as discussed above, Gray could not provide a 

basis for saying that the boilers on the Coast Guard ships were Cleaver-Brooks 

boilers and was relying on “vague memory.” Moreover, Gray testified that he had 

no knowledge that Walashek or anyone in his presence disturbed any asbestoscontaining material in the course of working on those ships. 

Gray’s testimony is not of “sufficient quality to allow the trier of fact to find the 

underlying fact [of threshold exposure to asbestos attributable to the defendant] in 

favor” of Plaintiffs. McGonnell, 98 Cal. App. 4th at 1105. Because Plaintiffs have 

failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to Walashek’s threshold 

exposure to asbestos attributable to Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is entitled to 

summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ claims. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Cleaver-Brooks’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment [Doc. 340] is GRANTED. The Court finds that there is no just reason 

for delay and orders the Clerk to enter final judgment in favor of Cleaver-Brooks. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2016

Case 3:14-cv-01567-BTM-BGS Document 418 Filed 05/24/16 Page 8 of 8