Clayton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (W.D. Wash., June 26, 2018)

Our plain-English summary of Clayton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, June 26, 2018).

William R. Clayton and his wife Jill sued a dozen defendants, including Warren Pumps and Syd Carpenter Marine Contractor. Mr. Clayton has mesothelioma, which the opinion calls a terminal illness. The case was removed from state court to federal court in May 2018. The state court had set an expedited trial because of his illness. The Claytons asked the federal court to hold an expedited trial in December 2018. They argued he had a right to a priority trial under a Washington statute, RCW 4.44.025. The court recognized that his illness might keep him from taking part in a trial that is not held fairly soon. It nevertheless held that he was not entitled to a priority trial in federal court. It also found that its trial calendar could not fit a December 2018 trial, especially one with 12 defendants. The court denied the motion and said it would enter its standard scheduling order. The opinion describes no exposure history.

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: June 26, 2018
• Docket: Case No. C18-0748JLR
• Stage: Other
• State: Washington

Outcome. The federal district court denied William and Jill Clayton's motion for an expedited December 2018 trial against the defendants and said it would enter its standard scheduling order.

What the court held. A plaintiff with a terminal illness is not entitled to a priority trial in federal court under RCW 4.44.025, and the court's trial calendar controls the setting of a trial date.

Issues decided: Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• William R. Clayton: mesothelioma

The defendants

• Air & Liquid Systems Corporation
• CBS Corporation
• Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc
• IMO Industries Inc
• Lone Star Industries Inc
• Metalclad Insulation LLC
• Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
• Saberhagen Holdings Inc
• Syd Carpenter Marine Contractor Inc (contractor)
• Warren Pumps LLC (manufacturer)
• Vigor Shipyards Inc

Other decisions in this case

Other rulings from the same court in the same case, in our library:

• Clayton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (July 20, 2018). The court granted Saberhagen's motion for judgment on the pleadings because the Claytons sued more than three years after Saberhagen dissolved, denied their Rule 56(d) discovery request, and denied their motion for relief from a deadline as moot.
• Clayton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (August 9, 2019). The court granted Syd Carpenter's motion for partial summary judgment on the strict liability, conspiracy and breach of warranty claims, denied it on unspecified miscellaneous claims, and granted the Claytons' motion against Syd Carpenter's government contractor defense.
• Clayton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (October 28, 2019). The court granted defendant Syd Carpenter's motion to extend the discovery and expert deadlines for limited discovery on William Clayton's cause of death, over plaintiff Jill Clayton's opposition.
• Clayton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (February 13, 2020). The court denied plaintiff Jill Clayton's motion to exclude defendant Syd Carpenter's industrial hygienist's dose reconstruction opinions, and denied as moot the part of the motion aimed at Vigor's expert because Vigor had settled.

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.

WILLIAM R. CLAYTON, etal., Plaintiffs,

v.

AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, etal., Defendants.

Case No. C18-0748JLR.

June 26, 2018.

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

William R. Clayton & Jill D. Clayton, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, represented by Glenn S. Draper, BERGMAN DRAPER OSLUND, Matthew Phineas Bergman, BERGMAN DRAPER OSLUND & Ruby K. Aliment, BERGMAN DRAPER OSLUND.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, successor in interest, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP & Trevor J. Mohr, GORDON

REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP.

CBS Corporation, a Delaware corporation formerly known as Viacom Inc successor in interest CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alice Coles Serko, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP, Christopher S. Marks, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP, Erin P. Fraser, TANENBAUM KEALE

LLP & Malika Johnson, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP.

Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc, Defendant, represented by Alice Coles Serko, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP, Barry Neal Mesher, Christopher S. Marks, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP, Erin P. Fraser, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP & Malika Johnson, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP.

IMO Industries Inc, individually, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL, Michael Edward Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Patricia T.O. Pearson, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.

Lone Star Industries Inc, individually successor in interest Pioneer Sand & Gravel Company, Defendant, represented by Brian Bernard Smith, FOLEY & MANSFIELD, Howard (Terry) I. Hall, FOLEY & MANSFIELD, Melissa K. Roeder, FOLEY & MANSFIELD & Zackary A. Paal, FOLEY & MANSFIELD.

Metalclad Insulation LLC, Defendant, represented by Katherine M. Steele, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY, Lorianne Hanson, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC & Michael Mackenzie Brown, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Richard G. Gawlowski, WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON.

Saberhagen Holdings Inc, successor in interest Tacoma Asbestos Company successor in interest The Brower Company, Defendant, represented by Timothy Kost Thorson, CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN PS.

Syd Carpenter Marine Contractor Inc, Defendant, represented by J. Scott Wood, FOLEY & MANSFIELD & R. Dirk Bernhardt, FOLEY & MANSFIELD.

Warren Pumps LLC, individually successor in interest Quimby Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC & Shaun Mary Morgan, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Vigor Shipyards Inc, a subsidiary of Vigor Shipyards Inc successor in interest Todd Shipyards, Defendant, represented by Walter Eugene Barton, KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXPEDITED TRIAL

JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.

Before the court is Plaintiffs William R. Clayton and Jill D. Clayton's (collectively, "Plaintiffs") motion for an expedited trial. (Mot. (Dkt. # 29).) Defendants Warren Pumps LLC ("Warren Pumps") and Syd Carpenter Marine Contractor ("Syd Carpenter") responded to the motion. (Warren Resp. (Dkt. # 33); Syd Resp. (Dkt. # 43).) The court has considered the motion, the responses to the motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised,[1] the court DENIES the motion.

On May 23, 2018, this case was removed from state court. (Not. of Removal (Dkt. # 1).) Plaintiffs request an expedited trial to take place in December 2018, because Mr. Clayton suffers from a terminal illness—mesothelioma—and the state court scheduled an expedited trial due to his illness.[2] (Mot. at 3-4.) Plaintiffs acknowledge that the court need not adopt the state court's scheduling order, but nonetheless contend that Mr. Clayton has a "right to a priority trial" pursuant to RCW 4.44.025. (See id. at 3-5.)

Although the court recognizes that Mr. Clayton's illness may prevent him from participating in a trial that does not occur relatively soon, Plaintiffs are incorrect that Mr. Clayton is "entitled to a priority trial" in federal court. (See id. at 4.) Moreover, the court's current trial calendar cannot accommodate a December 2018 trial, particularly a trial involving 12 defendants. Thus, the court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion (Dkt. # 29) and will enter its standard scheduling order.

[1] No party requests oral argument (see Mot. at 1; Warren Resp. at 1; Syd Resp. at 1), and the court determines that oral argument would not be helpful to its disposition of the motion, see Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(4).

[2] Warren Pumps and Syd Carpenter ask that the trial be set for January 2019 if the court grants the motion to expedite. (See Warren Resp. at 1; Syd Resp. at 1.)

Sources

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