jayme c. long - american conference institute · 26 james kaddo van nuys i 6230 sylmar avenue, van...

mckennalong.commckennalong.com

805073875

Jayme C. LongMcKenna Long & Aldridge LLP

ACI Asbestos Conference,

June 23-24: State of the Market, California

http://www.mckennalong.com/

http://www.mckennalong.com/

805073875

Introduction

2

• Los Angeles trial judge system update

• Coordination update

• New CMOs

• Filing trends

• Mandatory settlement conferences

• Verdicts

• Federal Court update

• Deposition limits

• Bankruptcy Trust Claims

• New Case Law and Issues on Appeal

805073875

• All personal injury and wrongful death PI cases go to a panel of trial

judges (not specific to asbestos)

• Trials sent to Stanley Mosk and Central Civil (downtown LA) and

now surrounding areas (Santa Monica, Pomona, Van Nuys,

Chatsworth, Torrance, Long Beach)

• Trial judge assigned on first day of trial

• No case management by trial judge

SoCA: Trial Judge System

3

805073875

• Pros and cons

– Uncertainty

– Judges new to the litigation

– Need to have your challenges ready (20 minutes to decide)

– Travel time, “off-site” location

– Different jury pools

– Verdict trends

SoCA: Trial Judge System (cont’d)

4

805073875

Los Angeles Superior Court Civil Trial Court Judicial

Officers (as of February 17, 2015)

5

Judicial Officer Courthouse Dept. Address

1 Lia Martin Central Civil West 315 600 S. Commonwealth, Los Angeles 90005

2 John J. Kralik Central Civil West 316 600 S. Commonwealth, Los Angeles 90005

3 Benny C. Osorio Chatsworth F44 9425 Penfield Avenue, Chatsworth 91311

4 Randy Rhodes Chatsworth F50 9425 Penfield Avenue, Chatsworth 91311

5 Roy Paul Governor Deukmejian S09 275 Magnolia, Long Beach 90802

6 Patrick T. Madden Governor Deukmejian S28 275 Magnolia, Long Beach 90802

7 Peter J. Mirich Governor Deukmejian S29 275 Magnolia, Long Beach 90802

8 Jan Pluim Pasadena P 300 East Walnut, Pasadena 91101

9 C. Edward Simpson Pasadena R 300 East Walnut, Pasadena 91101

10 Bobbi Tillmon Santa Monica G 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica 90401

11 H. Chester Horn Santa Monica I 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica 90401

12 Norman P. Tarle Santa Monica J 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica 90401

13 Lawrence Cho Santa Monica R 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica 90401

14 Mary Ann Murphy Stanley Mosk 25 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles 90012

15 Charles F. Palmer Stanley Mosk 33 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles 90012

19 David L. Minning Stanley Mosk 35 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles 90012

20 Stephen M. Moloney Stanley Mosk 41 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles 90012

21 Ralph W. Dau Stanley Mosk 57 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles 90012

22 Anthony J. Mohr Stanley Mosk 61 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles 90012

23 Laura C. Ellison Torrance A 825 Maple Avenue, Torrance 90503

24 Cary H. Nishimoto Torrance E 825 Maple Avenue, Torrance 90503

25 William G. Willet Torrance 11 825 Maple Avenue, Torrance 90503

26 James Kaddo Van Nuys I 6230 Sylmar Avenue, Van Nuys 91401

27 Michael Harwin Van Nuys M 6230 Sylmar Avenue, Van Nuys 91401

28 Elizabeth A. Lippitt Van Nuys W 6230 Sylmar Avenue, Van Nuys 91401

-Long Cause Courtrooms-

29 J. Stephen Czuleger Stanley Mosk 3 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles 90012

30 William A. MacLaughlin Stanley Mosk 89 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles 90012

31 Victor E. Chavez Stanley Mosk 96 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles 90012 5

805073875

• Los Angeles

– Non-preference cases: Judge Emile Elias

• Hears most pre-trial proceedings

• Group status conferences

• Sends out trials

• Goal: consistency, management

– Preference cases: Judge Kalin (new role)

• Similar duties to those of Judge Elias

– Settlement Judge (Bendix)

– Delay? Not on preference trials

– Coordination judge v. trial judge

• Riverside

– Department 10 is the new master calendar department

– Riverside is in the process of dismantling the master calendar system and complex

litigation department (Department 5, Judge Craig Riemer)

SoCA: Coordination Update

6

805073875

• Applies to cases filed after Aug. 11, 2014.

• Plaintiffs must file Preliminary Fact Sheet with complaint notifying parties

whether they intend to file preference motion.

• If plaintiffs do not indicate on their Preliminary Fact Sheet that they will be

moving for preference, plaintiffs must serve verified responses to standard

rogs within sixty (60) days after filing initial complaint.

• If plaintiffs indicated on their Preliminary Fact Sheet that they intend to

move for preference, they must provide verified responses to standard rogs

within thirty (30) days of filing their initial complaint.

• Defendants’ responses to standard interrogatories are due sixty (60) days

after service or sixty (60) days after plaintiff has served his/her verified

responses to standard rogs, whichever is later. If preference is granted,

defendants’ standard rog responses are due within 30 days of the Court’s

order granting preference.

New CMO for LASC Asbestos Cases

7

805073875

PLAINTIFF AND PERCIPIENT WITNESS DEPOSITION

• No depositions without (1) plaintiffs providing authorizations;

(2) producing all Social Security, military, medical records; and (3) plaintiffs’ verified

responses standard rogs.

• Plaintiff’s deposition limited to 20 hours unless showing of good cause.

• Must request additional time before deposition adjourns.

• Discovery conference with judge may be recorded by court reporter at the deposition.

• If plaintiffs’ attorney proceeds first, defense has the option of immediately taking the

defense deposition or waiting 5 court days.

• If plaintiffs’ attorney represents the witness noticed for depo, they must confirm

whether witness is available on noticed date or provide two available dates for

deposition within five (5) days of service of depo notice.


(cont’d)

8

805073875

PMQ/COR DEPOSITIONS

• Plaintiffs must provide standard interrogatory responses which set

forth alleged products and locations before noticing PMQ/COR

depositions.

• Within 5 court days of notice of PMQ/COR deposition, defendants

must either: (1) provide 2 available dates for deposition; or (2) notify

plaintiff of intention to object.

• If defendant indicates it will object, it must file a formal objection.

• After formal objection is served, each party must assign a person to

meet and confer. Parties to meet and confer by phone or in person

within 5 court days.


(cont’d)

9

805073875

• If unable to resolve, each party to submit short 5 page memo

outlining their position and setup a telephonic hearing with the court

for a preliminary ruling on objections to depo notice.

• Does not prevent formal motion to compel or protective order

afterward.

• If court orders defendant to produce witness, within 5 court days,

defendant must provide 2 available dates for PMQ/COR deposition.

• PMQ/COR depositions should not be done on the same topics.

Defendants can use prior testimony in lieu of new deposition if the

defendant and plaintiffs can stipulate to authenticity of prior

transcript.


(cont’d)

10

805073875

• San Francisco

– Coordination Judge: Judge Teri Jackson

– Judge Jackson conducts informal discovery conferences in

attempt to prevent discovery motions. Hears all law and motion

and discovery motions.

– Occasionally presides over trials, but most often assigns out.

– Delay? Due to budget constraints very little courtroom

availability, even for preference cases. Major delays for non-

preference cases. Judge availability may be increasing.

– New Pre-Trial Order limiting MILs to 5 per side, and instituting

new standard juror questionnaire.

NorCA: Coordination Update

11

805073875

• Alameda

– Coordination Judge: In January 2015, Judge Jo-Lynne Lee

handed over the asbestos department to Judge Seligman

– Judge Seligman has assigned non-preference trials to himself.

He has assigned preference trials to Judge Spain and may

assign to other judges

– None of the current procedures will be changed, and he is using

Judge Lee’s CMO.

NorCal: Coordination Update (cont’d)

12

805073875

• San Mateo

– Coordination Judge: Judge Marie Weiner

– Judge Weiner serves as complex judge and presides over all

asbestos cases (have been approx. 6 cases in last 18 months)

– No General Orders

– Single Assignment—Judge Weiner handles all pre-trial issues

and presides over trial itself. Trial dates are firm.

NorCA: Coordination Update

13

805073875

• Solano County

– Coordinating Judge: Judge Paul Beeman

– Subject to standard Case Management Order

– Almost exclusively Brayton cases (now more than 25 pending)

– Very few asbestos cases have started trial and no asbestos

verdicts

• Santa Clara County

– Two asbestos cases pending, one of which was designated as

complex

NorCA: Coordination Update (cont’d)

14

805073875

SoCA: Filings

15

Year Mesothelioma Lung Cancer

Asbestosis Other Disease Total Cases

2014 140 32 22 14 208

2013 150 107 24 1 282

2012 130 95 24 5 254

2011 132 66 13 2 213

2010 112 58 14 2 186

• 2015 has seen a decrease in filings, due to decrease in lung cancer filings. As of early June, there were 75 filings in Los Angeles.

• Numbers are approximate and based on multiple sources

805073875

• 181 cases set for trial

• 71% settled

• Los Angeles

– At least 9 cases went to trial

– 3 were plaintiff verdicts

– 6 defense verdicts

• Lung cancer filings: Increased

• Federal filings and transfers: Decreased

• MSJs: no change since coordination

SoCA: 2014 Statistics

16

805073875

Year San Francisco Alameda Total

ThroughMay 2015

51 32 83

2014 106 84 190

2013 96 121 217

2012 140 114 254

2011 203 76 279

2010 237 100 337

NorCA: Filings

17

805073875

• San Francisco filings down

– Brayton filing in other jurisdictions: Solano, Alameda and Los

Angeles; Majority of cases filed in San Francisco in 2014 were

Brayton asbestosis claims

– Budget cuts: fewer courtrooms available – disincentive to

plaintiffs

– Centralized case handling by Judge Jackson who will remain in

her role through 2015

• Alameda filings also down

– Virtually all malignancies

– Centralized handling with Judge Seligman

NorCA Filings (cont’d)

18

805073875

• California Rules of Court Provide for Mandatory Settlement

Conferences (“MSC”) – a court sponsored mediation program

available to parties free of charge or at a nominal cost.

– Parties may either request an order to attend a MSC, or the

judge can exercise discretion and order the parties to MSC

– In Los Angeles County, all MSCs are heard by one of six civil

judges. In San Francisco, MSCs are heard by a panel of two

attorneys experienced in the type of law applied the parties’

cases.

Mandatory Settlement Conferences

19

805073875

Pros Cons

Inexpensive alternative to private mediation

Too many cases, too little time. Settlement officers do not have the resources to spend the time or energy each case needs to reach a settlement. Sessions may be as short as an hour.

Court’s attempt to promote judicial economy in the hopes that the case will not be tried.

High opportunity costs. Trial counsel and client must be personally present. Clients spend a lot of money to attend MSCs that are not likely to end in case resolution.

Intended to encourage parties to engage in serious settlement discussions.

As a result of low likelihood of success,parties do not treat MSCs seriously.

Mandatory Settlement Conferences (cont’d)

20

2014Plaintiff

Phillips (Fresno)

Davis (LA)

Bankhead(Alameda)

Whalen (Alameda)

Defense

O’Bryan(Contra Costa)

Felton(Santa Monica)

Abdun-Nur(Torrance)

Schildknegt(Long Beach)

Marquez(Santa Monica)

Hill (Central District)

Evans (Long Beach)

Moran (Santa Monica)

Koepke (San Francisco)

Lee (Santa Monica)

2013Plaintiff

Sutherland (LA)

Grigg (Alameda)

Smith (Alameda)

Saller (LA)

Medina (LA)

Marteney(Chatsworth)

Aikins (SF)

Rocha (SF)

Defense

Luros (Alameda)

Walter(Sacramento)

Erhart (Torrance)

Hernandezcueva (LBC)

Odell (Santa Monica)

Minton (LA)

Rush (LA)

Bishop (SF)

Nelson (Alameda)

21805073875

Verdicts (cont’d)

Plaintiff

Winkel (LA)

Hightower(Alameda)

Defense

Baeza (Long Beach)

Popawski (Van Nuys)

Williams (SF)

Hubbard (SF)

2015

Plaintiff

Monaco (LA)

Paulus (LA)

Izell (LA)

Keeney (LA)

Destin (SF)

Hellam (Alameda)

Scott (Alameda)

Lovelace(Sacramento)

Defense

Orona (LA)

Couscouris (LA)

Petitpas (LA)

Anderson (LA)

Elliot (LA)

Patchen (LA)

Skinner (Alameda)

2011Plaintiff

Mansir (LA)

Steffen (LA)

Strickland (LA)

Webb (LA)(JNOV granted by Judge post-verdict)

Ventimiglia (SF)

Bissett (Alameda)

Casey (SF)

Lenny (SF)

Bankhead(Alameda)

Defense

Williamson (LA)

Steiner (Santa Barbara)

Nunez (LA)

Morrison (LA)

Stone (SF)

Johnson (SF)

2010Plaintiff

Ricker (Alameda)

Farag (LA)

Pfeiffer (LA)

Geist (LA)

Harrell (LA)

Bjerke (LA)

Evans (LA)

Defense

Stewart (SF)

Brady (Alameda)

Smithson (SF)

Herring (LA)

Duncan (LA)

Kalil (LA)

Dix (LA)

Vaught (LA)

Johansen (LA)

Cox (LA)

2012

805073875 22

Verdicts (cont’d)

805073875

• Los Angeles Superior Court branch, Chatsworth, CA: a jury awarded

73 year old Judith Winkel $13 million dollars against Colgate-

Palmolive Co., finding that she contracted mesothelioma from using

its talcum powder. Jurors found that its talc, marketed as Cashmere

Bouquet, presented a substantial danger about which the company

failed to warn. A confidential settlement was entered into prior to the

commencement of the punitive damages phase of trial. It was the

first verdict against the company involving asbestos exposure from

talcum powder.

Winkel v. Colgate-Palmolive

23

805073875

CA Central District

• Federal removal and filings down

• Coordinated pre-trial proceedings: Judge William Young, USDC

Mass., Boston

– Approx. 16 cases

• Filings: File in CA Central District and mail copy to USDC Mass.

• Oral argument:

– No oral argument unless request is made

– Oral argument conducted by video

• Status conferences: Conducted by telephone

Federal Court: Update

24

805073875

• Limits a deposition of an individual to 7 hours, but has several

exceptions

• Exceptions:

– Complex litigation. However, if a doctor attests that there is

doubt that the witness will survive beyond six months, the

deposition is limited to 14 hours.

– Experts

– PMQs

• CertainTeed v. Superior Court (2014): Trial court may grant more

than the 14 hours in complex personal injury cases, if appropriate

under the circumstances.

– New CMO provides Defendants 20 hours for deposition even

in cases with a doctor’s declaration.

Deposition Limits (CCP 2025.290)

25

805073875

• Judge Elias issued a CMO on April 7, 2015, requiring disclosure of

bankruptcy trust claims and claims-related materials: “The Court

finds that facts relating to a plaintiff’s and/or decedent’s alleged

exposures to asbestos are not privileged and are discoverable.

Plaintiffs are required to disclose all facts relating to all of their alleged

exposures to asbestos, whether to the products or premises

attributable to named defendants, or to bankrupt or other

entities, and regardless of whether those facts have been, or

ever will be, included in a claim to a third party for the purpose

of obtaining compensation for an asbestos-related injury…”

• Six additional standard interrogatories were added pertaining to

bankruptcy trusts

Bankruptcy Trust Claims (cont’d)

26

805073875

• Initial confusion related to the definition of “YOU” and whether it

included plaintiffs’ attorneys was clarified by Judge Elias’ May 27,

2015 CMO, which answers that question affirmatively

• Plaintiffs are to produce bankruptcy documents with standard

interrogatory responses.

• Remaining issues to be resolved:

– Whether court maintains jurisdiction after case is resolved to

determine whether plaintiffs concealed bankruptcy trust

information; impact of set-offs and credits

– Ability of defendants to effectively examine plaintiff concerning

bankruptcy trust submissions during deposition

Bankruptcy Trust Claims (cont’d)

27

805073875

• Defendants brought a motion seeking to compel production of documents related to

bankruptcy trust submissions and also attempted to further depose plaintiff.

• Plaintiff testified that he “believed” claims had been submitted to BK trusts on his

behalf, but he was extremely evasive when asked follow-up questions. Defense

counsel was essentially stonewalled during the deposition between the non-responsive

answers and plaintiffs’ counsel instructing his client not to answer. After taking the

matter under submission, Judge Kalin’s Order stated that plaintiffs must produce and all

claims on submission to any bankruptcy trusts, as well as any bankruptcy trust claim

forms signed by plaintiff, but not yet submitted. However, the court found that un-

submitted and unsigned claim forms are privileged work product and/or covered by the

attorney-client privilege. Defendants are still entitled to a privilege log.

• Defendants’ attempt to further depose plaintiff was denied.

• Door appears to still be open for plaintiffs to delay investigating and preparing

bankruptcy claim documents until after the conclusion of the lawsuit.

Bankruptcy Trust Claims Case Example

Scharrer v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (LASC)

28

805073875

• Izell v Union Carbide, et. al. (Oct 2014) - Jury here originally

awarded $30 Million in compensatory damages to Mr. Izell and his

wife. While the Court of Appeal reduced that award to $6 Million

after trial, it refused to reduce the $18 Million in punitive damages.

UCC found 65% responsible, whereas joint compound

manufacturers to which it supplied were only found 1%

responsible. The Court found that this apportionment was

supported by the verdict, because the jury could weigh the

reprehensibility of the various companies when apportioning fault. It

is difficult to produce evidence of another defendant’s

reprehensibility when they are not in the Courtroom, so defendants

should develop evidence of codefendants’ conduct in discovery.

New Case Law

29

805073875

• Children's Hospital v. Blue Cross (June 2014) – relying on

Howell, the Court held the trial court erred by excluding

evidence of the historical paid lesser amounts accepted by the

hospital because the reasonable value of the hospital’s medical

services must be determined after considering all factors,

including the amounts the hospital accepts as payment for its

services; the billed price is not necessarily representative of

either the cost of providing those services or their market value.

New Case Law (cont’d)

30

805073875

• Ganoe v. Metalclad. et. al. (July 2014) – Court of Appeal ruled that

plaintiffs’ amended responses to respondent Metalclad’s written

discovery, which were served after respondent filed summary

judgment but before the summary judgment hearing, setting forth

specific facts supporting plaintiff’s exposure to respondent’s product

was sufficient to defeat respondent’s motion for summary judgment.

In dicta, Court of Appeal reasoned that fact witness’ testimony that

he had never heard of respondent’s company was not sufficient

evidence to shift respondent’s burden of proof on summary

judgment, unless respondent also showed witness its company

logo to determine whether or not witness was able to recognize it.

Now we are seeing plaintiffs’ attorneys conduct re-direct

examination asking deponents whether or not seeing defendant’s

logo would help them remember the defendant’s products/services.


31

805073875

• Ramos v. Brenntag Specialties (awaiting argument to be set in

California Supreme Court). In March, 2014, the Court of Appeal

held that the component parts doctrine does not shield a supplier of

raw materials that itself allegedly caused injury when used as

intended in an occupational setting by a plaintiff engaged in a

manufacturing process. In June 2014, Uriarte v. Scott Sales Co

followed suit. Both cases have been depublished, pending review,

with Ramos as lead case. The primary case with which they conflict

is still citable as good law, Maxton v. Western States Metals, Inc.

(2012) 203 Cal. App.4th 81.


32

805073875

• Haver v. BNSF Railway Co. (Awaiting argument to be set in California

Supreme Court). In June 2014, the Court of Appeal agreed with Campbell v. Ford

Motor Co. (2012), that a premises owner does not have a duty to protect family

members of workers on its premises from secondary exposure to asbestos used

during the course of the property's owner's business. Plaintiff was neither an

employee nor a visitor to the employer's premises. The difference between Haver

and Kesner is that the defendant in Kesner is both a premises owner and a

manufacturer of asbestos products, whereas the defendant in Haver is only a

premises owner. Plaintiff is supported by the Consumer Attorneys of California.

Defendant's amici curiae include the Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., Chamber

of Commerce of the United States of America, National Association of

Manufacturers, American Tort Reform Association, NFIB Small Business Legal

Center, International Association of Defense Counsel, Federation of Defense &

Corporate Counsel, Western States Petroleum Association, Pacific Legal

Foundation, Association of American Railroads, The California Chamber of

Commerce, and The Civil Justice Association of California.


33

805073875


34

Kesner v. Superior Court (awaiting argument to be set in

California Supreme Court). On May 15, 2014, the Court of Appeal

allowed a take-home claim to go forward. However, Kesner involves

both a manufacturer of asbestos and a premises owner (Apex), a

factual distinction that was critical to its analysis and conclusion. Along

with Haver, it’s now fully briefed and awaiting argument setting in the

California Supreme Court. Plaintiff is supported by the Consumer

Attorneys of California and the Brayton Purcell law firm. Defendant's

amici curiae include the Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., Chamber

of Commerce of the United States of America, National Association of

Manufacturers, American Tort Reform Association, NFIB Small

Business Legal Center, International Association of Defense Counsel,

Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel, Resolute Management,

Owens-Illinois, CertainTeed Corporation, Honeywell International, Inc.,

and Civil Justice Association of California.

805073875

• Webb v. Special Electric Co. (awaiting argument to be set in

California Supreme Court). On March 14, 2013, the Court of

Appeal decided that a supplier of raw asbestos to Johns-Manville

was liable to failure to warn a downstream user who contracted

mesothelioma while working with Johns-Manville pipe allegedly

containing asbestos fibers supplied by the defendant. Among other

issues, the controversial decision raises questions about the

application of the component parts doctrine and law regarding

causation. Further, it raises the practical question whether a

supplier to a sophisticated manufacturer should have a duty to warn

end-users, when the manufacturer already owes that duty and the

supplier has no reasonable means of communicating the warning.

Defendant's petition for review was granted in 2013 and the case

has been fully briefed and awaiting argument to be set since June

2014.


35

805073875

• BSNF Railway Company v. Superior Court (awaiting

determination of Plaintiffs' Petition for Review to California

Supreme Court). On March 27, 2015, in a wrongful death case

brought by relatives of BSNF's deceased non-resident former

employee, a Court of Appeal granted BSNF's petition for writ of

mandate, reversing the trial court's denial of its motion to quash

based on lack of general personal jurisdiction. It did so despite

evidence that the railroad generates approximately 6 percent of its

revenue, employs 5 percent of its track and employs 3,520 people in

California. The Court relied upon recent U.S. Supreme Court cases

in Daimler AG v. Bauman,134 S. Ct. 746, 751 (2014) and Goodyear

Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct 2846, 2854

(2011).


36

805073875

Most jurisdictions have found that Daimler "expressly cast doubt"

on prior precedents that permitted general jurisdiction on the basis

that the defendant was doing business in the forum. In early May

2015, Plaintiff filed a petition for review to the California Supreme

Court, which is still pending. In early May 2015, Plaintiff filed a

petition for review to the California Supreme Court, which is still

pending. Currently pending on the merits is Bristol-Myers Squibb v.

Superior Court, where nonresidents of California sought

jurisdiction against a nonresident pharmaceutical drug

manufacturer. The Court has also already issued “Grant and Hold”

orders on at least three other cases addressing general

jurisdiction--holding those pending its decision on Bristol-Myers.


37

805073875

• Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (decided June 18, 2015).

Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment that had been granted

to manufacturer of an arcing machine. Its function was to abrade

brake linings, which allegedly released asbestos dust when applied

to asbestos-containing linings. The decision contains an extensive

discussion of O’Neil and the Tellez-Cordova exception to the general

rule barring imposition of strict liability on a manufacturer for harm

caused by another manufacturer’s product.


38

805073875

• Paulus v. Crane (2014) – Defendant not entitled to setoffs for settlements

plaintiffs would be entitled to recover, but had not yet sought, from BK

trusts.

• Barabin v. AJ (2014) – Trial court cannot abdicate duty as gatekeeper.

Trial court's failure to make findings about the relevance and reliability of the

expert testimony (every exposure theory) under FRE 702 and Daubert was

an abuse of discretion.

• Pfeifer v. John Crane (2013) – Held the trial court correctly declined to give

John Crane’s requested instruction on “sophisticated user”, which stated

that employees of a sophisticated user are deemed to be sophisticated

users.


39

805073875

• SoCA: Appeals are now decided by the Second District, Division 4

because of recusals

• Take-home duty (Kesner/Haver). Supreme Court has not yet

assigned date for oral argument

• Automakers and the component-part doctrine (Petitpas). Court

of Appeal has not yet assigned date for oral argument

• Whether intermediary’s sophistication obviates supplier’s duty to

warn intermediary (e.g., JM) and end product user (Webb). Supreme

Court has not yet assigned date for oral argument

• Duties under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation

Act (Murat)

Issues on Appeal

40

805073875

• Duties and applicable law in suits involving premises outside of

U.S. (Kordestani, Sarooie)

• Plaintiff’s failure to introduce meaningful financial condition evidence

at trial—potential reversal of punitive damages award

(Soto/Medina). Court of Appeal will likely issue its decision before

July 31, 2015

Issues on Appeal (cont’d)

41

805073875

Jayme C. Long

Los Angeles, CA

McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP

(213) 243-6229

[email protected]

Contact Information

42

jayme c. long - american conference institute · 26 james kaddo van nuys i 6230 sylmar avenue, van...

Documents