Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00540/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00540-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 368
Nature of Suit: Asbestos Personal Injury - Prod.liab.
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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

LISA GRANDE, individually and as

successor-in-interest to THE ESTATE

OF GERALD BRANTLEY, Deceased, 

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv540-GPC(JMA)

NOTICE AND ORDER

PROVIDING TENTATIVE

RULINGS REGARDING PENDING

MOTIONS FOR INVOLUNTARY

DISMISSAL AND SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

vs.

BORG-WARNER MORSE TEC,

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Currently pending before the Court, and set for hearing on Friday, March 7,

2014, are two motions for summary judgment and a motion for involuntary dismissal

filed by Defendants Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) and Crane Co. (Dkt. Nos. 187, 195,

198.) Having considered the submissions of the parties, and in anticipation of Friday’s

hearing, the Court hereby issues the following tentative rulings:

The Court tentatively DENIES in part Defendant Ford’s motion for involuntary

dismissal and GRANTS in part Ford’s motion for evidentiary sanctions against

Plaintiff for failure to produce evidence or otherwise respond to Ford’s requests for

production of the 1979 Ford Courier manual. (Dkt. No. 187.) The Court is tentatively

prepared to DISMISS Plaintiff’s claims related to asbestos exposure from Decedent’s

1979 Ford Courier. 

- 1 - [12cv540-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:12-cv-00540-GPC-JMA Document 227 Filed 03/06/14 Page 1 of 3
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

TheCourt tentativelyGRANTS Ford’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No.

198.) The Court tentatively findsthat Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence

to support a reasonable inference that Decedent was occupationally exposed to either

originally-installed asbestos-containing Ford parts or Ford replacement parts during his

employment at Schaefer Chevron. In particular, the Court is prepared to find that (1)

Plaintiff has not introduced evidence that Schaefer Chevron purchased Fordmanufactured replacement parts, and (2) the evidence Plaintiff has introduced

regarding Decedent’s exposure to originally-installed asbestos-containing Ford parts

during Decedent’s employment at Schaefer Chevron is too speculative to withstand

summary judgment.

Furthermore, the Court tentatively finds that Plaintiff has not offered sufficient

evidence to support a conclusion that Decedent either (1) removed original Fordinstalled asbestos-containing brakesfromDecedent’s 1963 FordCountry Squire, or(2)

purchased replacement brakesfor the 1963 FordCountrySquire manufactured by Ford.

The Court is therefore prepared to find that Plaintiff has failed to raise triable issues of

fact regarding Decedent’s exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by

Ford. 

In addition, the Court tentatively DENIES Crane Co.’s motion for summary

judgment. (Dkt. No. 195.) The Court tentatively finds that Plaintiff has raised triable

issues of fact regarding Decedent’s exposure to Crane Co.’s asbestos-containing

products. Furthermore, the Court tentatively findsthat triable issues of fact exist on the

availability of punitive damages. However,theCourt tentativelyGRANTS Crane Co.’s

request to sever the issue of punitive damages for trial.

//

//

//

// 

- 2 - [12cv540-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:12-cv-00540-GPC-JMA Document 227 Filed 03/06/14 Page 2 of 3
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

Counsel are advised that the Court’s rulings are tentative, and the Court will

entertain additional argument at the hearing on March 7, 2014. The parties shall have

a combined thirty (30) minutes to present their arguments. That time shall be divided

equally between each side, and counsel shall be responsible for keeping time and

reserving time as necessary for response, rebuttal, or both. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 6, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - [12cv540-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:12-cv-00540-GPC-JMA Document 227 Filed 03/06/14 Page 3 of 3