U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas: Asbestos Cases

Our case-law library holds 15 asbestos decisions from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (1984–2023). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• Kind of court: Federal district court

Decisions

• Gallo v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2023). The magistrate judge did not rule on the discovery dispute but proposed severing the claims against Carnival from the other 19 defendants and remanding the others to state court so discovery could proceed, and set a hearing on that idea.
• United Refining Co. v. Dorrion (2023). The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that the executor's wrongful-death claim against United Refining was discharged in the 1988 bankruptcy plan, subject to a limited remand on whether the executor forfeited an argument about the plan's definition of claim.
• United Refining Company v. Dorrion (2023). The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that the executor's wrongful-death claim against United Refining was discharged in its 1988 reorganization, subject to a limited remand on whether the executor forfeited an argument about the plan's definition of claim.
• EL Paso Energy Est Company v. Chevron USA Inc. (2022). The court granted El Paso's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that Chevron must defend and indemnify El Paso for the Louisiana asbestos death lawsuit under the stock purchase agreement; Chevron's cross-motion had been denied earlier.
• Wisener v. Revlon Consumer Products Corp. (2022). The federal district court granted Naomi Wisener's motion to remand to Harris County state court because Revlon failed to show complete diversity or that the non-diverse defendants HEB and Brookshire were improperly joined, and ordered defendants to pay her costs and fees.
• Felix v. Novelis Corporation (2021). The federal district court granted Novelis Corporation's motion for summary judgment because Michele Felix's claims were time barred under Texas law, and overruled Novelis's evidentiary objections.
• LaFRENTZ v. Lockheed Martin Corporation (2021). The court denied 3M and General Dynamics' request for an adverse inference jury instruction for spoliation, but granted a lesser remedy: a limited jury instruction describing the unanswered preservation request and the burial of the lung tissue, so the motion was granted in part and denied in part.
• Petrie v. Novelis Corporation (2021). The magistrate judge recommended denying Novelis's individual-capacity motion, granting its successor-in-interest motion on the negligence, loss of consortium, survival, wrongful death and gross negligence claims, and denying it on the strict products liability claim.
• Bradshaw v. Johnson & Johnson (2019). The federal district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that J&J failed to show the suit was related to Imerys's bankruptcy, so the case went back to Harris County state court.
• Williams v. Avon Products, Inc. (2019). The magistrate judge recommended denying the Williamses' motion to remand, finding the Texas retailer Randall's was improperly joined, so removal to federal court on diversity grounds stood and Revlon and BMS prevailed.
• Acevedo v. Abraham (2017). The court granted summary judgment to nurse practitioner Johny Abraham and Dr. Patrick Strunk on qualified immunity, dismissed prisoner Efrain Acevedo's claims with prejudice, and denied his motion to add state-law malpractice claims as futile.
• Cooper Industries, LLC v. Precision Castparts Corp. (2016). The court granted Cooper Industries summary judgment that the stock purchase agreement unambiguously made Wyman-Gordon responsible for indemnifying and defending asbestos personal-injury claims from Katy Road employment, but denied both sides summary judgment on the $100,000 threshold, Precision's liability and collateral estoppel, leaving those for trial.
• In re Reed (2016). The court held that a Texas state court's dismissal of Reed's earlier pre-suit petition did not bar her federal Rule 27 petition and that Rule 27 does not require personal jurisdiction over the respondents, but it did not yet grant the deposition and ordered Reed to submit medical evidence under seal.
• Madden v. Able Supply Co. (2002). The court denied remand of the claims against Westinghouse (Viacom) under the federal officer removal statute, but severed the claims against the other forty-odd defendants and remanded them to Texas state court, partly granting the plaintiff's motion.
• Castorina v. Lykes Bros. SS Co., Inc. (1984). After a bench trial, the court found for defendant Lykes Bros. Steamship Co. and against longshoreman Castorina, holding the claim timely but finding no negligence under § 905(b) and no unseaworthiness.