Barabin v. AstenJOHNSON, Inc. (2017)

Our plain-English summary of Barabin v. AstenJOHNSON, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, May 30, 2017).

Geraldine Barabin, as personal representative of the estate of Henry Barabin, brought this wrongful death case against AstenJohnson, Goulds Pumps, Grinnell, Paramount Supply, Scapa Dryer Fabrics and Sequoia Ventures. She alleges Mr. Barabin contracted and died of mesothelioma from asbestos exposure. The case is the wrongful death counterpart to a separate personal injury/survival case. In that case the Ninth Circuit had reversed a verdict for the plaintiff and sent it back to the Western District for a new trial. The wrongful death case was filed in King County Superior Court and removed to federal court on diversity grounds. The plaintiff moved to remand it to state court, and that motion was pending. If remand were denied, the defendants would seek to consolidate the two cases. The parties jointly asked to continue the early disclosure, conference and status report deadlines until after the remand ruling. The court granted the request, citing its inherent authority to manage its cases, and set the deadlines for one month after the remand order. The opinion does not describe Mr. Barabin's work or the sources of his exposure.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington
• Decided: May 30, 2017
• Docket: No. 2:17-cv-00597-JLR
• Stage: Other
• State: Washington

Outcome. The court granted the parties' stipulated motion and continued the initial disclosure, Rule 26(f) conference and joint status report deadlines until one month after it rules on Plaintiff's motion to remand.

Issues decided: Wrongful Death and Survival, Trial Procedure and Discovery, Venue, Removal and Transfer.

The people and their exposure

• Henry Barabin: mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• AstenJohnson, Inc.
• Goulds Pumps, Inc
• Grinnell LLC
• Paramount Supply Co.
• Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc
• Sequoia Ventures, Inc

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

GERALDINE BARABIN, as Personal Representative for the Estate of HENRY BARABIN, deceased.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ASTENJOHNSON, INC., etal., Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-00597-JLR.

May 30, 2017.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle.

Geraldine Barabin, Plaintiff, represented by Meredith B. Good, BRAYTON PURCELL LLP.

AstenJohnson, Inc, Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes, COSMICH SIMMONS & BROWN, PLLC, pro hac vice & James P. Brady, FOLEY & MANSFIELD.

Goulds Pumps, Inc, Defendant, represented by Ronald C. Gardner, GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

Grinnell LLC, Defendant, represented by Ronald C. Gardner, GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

Paramount Supply Co., Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc, Defendant, represented by H. Lane Young, II, HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP, pro hac vice, Nicole R. MacKenzie, WILLIAMS KASTNER & S. Christopher Collier, HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP, pro hac vice.

Sequoia Ventures, Inc, Defendant, represented by Kevin C. Baumgardner, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP, Todd T. Williams, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP & William

Randolph Squires, III, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP.

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE INITIAL SCHEDULING

DATES

JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.

RELIEF REQUESTED

The parties (Plaintiff and Defendants) seek to continue the deadlines set forth in the Court's April 27, 2017 Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement, for the reasons set forth below.

FACTS

This case is the wrongful death counterpart to Case No. 2:07-cv-01454-JLR, which involves Plaintiff's personal injury/survival claims for her decedent, Henry Barabin. The wrongful death and survival cases both arise from Plaintiff's allegations that Mr. Barabin contracted and died of mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos. Plaintiff filed this wrongful death case in King County Superior Court after the Ninth Circuit reversed a verdict in Plaintiff's favor for the survival claims and remanded it to the Western District for a new trial.

Like the personal injury/survival case, the instant case was removed to the Western District based on diversity jurisdiction. On April 27, 2017, the Court issued its Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement, which set the deadlines for the FRCP 26(f) conference (May 25), FRCP 26(a)(1) initial disclosures (June 1), and joint status report (June 8).

On May 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the instant case to state court. That motion is pending, and noted for hearing on May 26. If Plaintiff's remand motion is denied, the defendants will continue to seek to consolidate Plaintiff's wrongful death and personal injury/survival claims. The Order Setting Trial Related Dates in the personal injury/survival case was issued on March 27, 2017 and trial is scheduled to begin on March 26, 2018.

If, on the other hand, the remand motion is granted, then the deadlines for the FRCP 26(f) conference (5/25/17), FRCP 26(a)(1) initial disclosures (6/1/17), and joint status report (6/8/17) in the instant case will be moot. Therefore, the parties respectfully request a continuance of these deadlines until a month after adjudication of Plaintiff's motion for remand. AUTHORITY

"The district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery." Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming trial court decision to stay discovery pending resolution of issue of defendants' immunity). See, Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177, 60 L. Ed. 2d 115, 99 S. Ct. 1635 (1979) (court has inherent power "to exercise appropriate control over the discovery process"); cf. Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 81 L. Ed. 153, 57 S. Ct. 163 (1936) (court has inherent power to stay actions in their entirety). Granting the requested relief, stipulated by the parties, is squarely within the Court's inherent authority to manage its cases.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the parties, represented by the undersigned counsel, request that the deadlines in the April 27, 2017 Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement are hereby continued to one month after the date the Court issues an order on Plaintiff's Motion for Remand.

This stipulation and agreed order have been approved as to form; notice of presentation and hearing on said Order is hereby waived by the parties.

STIPULATED ORDER

The deadlines in the April 27, 2017 Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement are hereby continued to one month after the date the Court issues an order on Plaintiff's Motion for Remand. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• Washington asbestos laws
• Washington asbestos exposure sites