Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01567/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01567-1/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.

AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 14cv1567 BTM(BGS)

ORDER GRANTING CROWN 

CORK & SEAL COMPANY, 

INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

On June 30, 2015, Defendant Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. (“Crown”) 

filed a motion for summary judgment against Plaintiffs. On July 24, 2015, Plaintiffs 

filed a notice of non-opposition to Crown’s motion. 

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

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

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

for various employers, 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 292 Filed 09/08/15 Page 1 of 4
2

14cv1567 BTM(BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Crown has been sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Mundet 

Cork Company (“Mundet”). Crown moves for summary judgment on the ground 

that (1) Plaintiffs cannot show that Crown ever manufactured, distributed, 

advertised, sold, installed or removed asbestos or any kind of asbestos-containing 

product; and (2) Plaintiffs cannot establish that the decedent was ever exposed to 

asbestos from working with or around any Crown or Mundet products. 

Crown has submitted evidence that Crown has never been in the business 

of manufacturing, distributing, advertising, selling, installing or removing asbestos 

or any type of asbestos-containing products. (Krzyzanowski Decl. ¶ 3.) Crown 

also points to Plaintiffs’ discovery responses, which fail to identify specific 

documents or facts supporting Plaintiffs’ claims against Crown. (Def.’s Exs. J, K.)

In Plaintiffs’ Initial Disclosure Statement, Plaintiffs identified James Doud, 

Ron Gray, and Frank Walashek as the individuals who possess general knowledge 

of the decedent’s work with and around asbestos-containing products and 

materials. (Def.’s Ex. F.) However, at their depositions, Plaintiffs stipulated that 

each of these witnesses had no personal information against Crown (individually 

and as successor-in-interest to Mundet) and would not be testifying against Crown 

in this case. (Def.’s Exs. G, H, I.) 

Crown 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 292 Filed 09/08/15 Page 2 of 4
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 any asbestos-containing product

attributable to Crown or Mundet. “In the context of a cause of action for asbestosrelated latent injuries, the plaintiff must first establish some threshold exposure to 

the defendant's defective asbestos-containing products, and must further establish 

in reasonable medical probability that a particular exposure or series of exposures 

was a “legal cause” of his injury, i.e., a substantial factor in bringing about the 

injury.” Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal. 4th 953, 982 (1997). 

Because Crown has satisfied its initial burden, 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. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:14-cv-01567-BTM-BGS Document 292 Filed 09/08/15 Page 3 of 4
4

14cv1567 BTM(BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Crown’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 

244] against Plaintiffs. Because the Court finds that there is no just reason for 

delay, the Court orders the Clerk to enter final judgment in favor of defendant 

Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2015

Case 3:14-cv-01567-BTM-BGS Document 292 Filed 09/08/15 Page 4 of 4