Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05227/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05227-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 There does not appear to be any dispute as to the locality test.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEVERLEY JAMES LOWE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., ET AL.,

Defendants. /

No. C 12-05227 CRB

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Defendant General Dynamics moves the Court to reconsider Judge Eduardo

Robreno’s June 25, 2012 order denying its Motion for Summary Judgment. See Case No.

2:09-cv-64063-ER dkt. 60. Defendant argues, among other things, that Judge Robreno erred

in applying maritime law to this dispute, and that, even if the Court applies maritime law, it

should also apply a sophisticated user defense. Id. Defendant urges that reconsideration is

appropriate because the parties did not brief the issue of whether maritime law applies in

advance of the summary judgment hearing. Id.

The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefs on this Motion as well as all of the

underlying papers. Having the full benefit of these materials, the Court concludes that Judge

Robreno properly applied maritime law, as the locality and connection tests have both been

met.1

 See Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 367 (1990) (“[t]he need for uniform rules of

maritime conduct and liability is not limited to navigation, but extends at least to any other 

Case 3:12-cv-05227-CRB Document 80 Filed 01/03/13 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2012\5227\order re reconsideration.wpd 2

activities traditionally undertaken by vessels, commercial or noncommercial”). The Court

also rejects Defendant’s argument that the allegations are not subject to maritime law, finding

that Defendant reads the allegations too narrowly. Finally, the Court declines Defendant’s

invitation to import the sophisticated user defense into maritime law, as Defendant offers no

citation to any other court having done so, and has not convinced the Court that failure to do

so constitutes error. 

Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2013 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:12-cv-05227-CRB Document 80 Filed 01/03/13 Page 2 of 2