Payne v. Abb, Inc. (2022)

Our plain-English summary of Payne v. Abb, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, July 25, 2022).

Dennis C. Payne and Susan Payne sued ABB, Inc. and other defendants in one federal case in the Eastern District of California, and later sued Triple A Machine Shop, Inc. in a second case. They sought damages for Mr. Payne's mesothelioma and for loss of consortium. The plaintiffs alleged that all defendants in both cases were responsible for exposing him to asbestos during his time at the California Merchant Academy in Vallejo, California, in the 1970s. The plaintiffs filed a notice that the cases were related. The court was asked to decide whether the two actions were related under Local Rule 123. It decided that they were, because they involved the same plaintiffs, the same injuries and similar fact questions, such as which products contributed to the disease, each defendant's percentage of fault and the amount of damages. The judge reassigned the later case to himself and to the magistrate judge on the first case. The court stated that this did not consolidate the cases. Any party who wanted consolidation would have to file a motion or stipulation.

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, Eastern District of California
• Decided: July 25, 2022
• Docket: Nos. 2:20-cv-01198-TLN-AC, 2:22-cv-00939-JAM-KJN
• Stage: Other
• State: California

Outcome. The court found the two actions related under Local Rule 123 and reassigned the later-filed Payne case to the same district judge and magistrate judge as the first-filed case, without consolidating them.

What the court held. Actions are related under Local Rule 123 when they involve the same parties, similar facts and the same legal questions, so that assignment to one judge saves judicial effort. Relating cases assigns them to one judge but does not consolidate them.

Issues decided: Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• Dennis C. Payne: mesothelioma

The defendants

• ABB, Inc.
• Triple A Machine Shop, 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.

DENNIS C. PAYNE and SUSAN PAYNE, Plaintiffs,

v.

ABB, INC., etal., Defendants.

DENNIS C. PAYNE and SUSAN PAYNE, Plaintiffs,

v.

TRIPLE A MACHINE SHOP, INC., Defendant.

Nos. 2:20-cv-01198-TLN-AC, 2:22-cv-00939-JAM-KJN

July 25, 2022.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

RELATED CASE ORDER

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Related Cases on July 15, 2022. (ECF No. 121.) Examination of the above-captioned actions reveals they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123 (E.D. Cal. 1997). Pursuant to Rule 123 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, two actions are related when they involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claim(s); when they involve the same transaction, property, or event; or when they "involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law and their assignment to the same Judge. . . is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort." L.R. 123(a). Further,

[i]f the Judge to whom the action with the lower or lowest number has been assigned determines that assignment of the actions to a single Judge is likely to effect a savings of judicial effort or other economies, that Judge is authorized to enter an order reassigning all higher numbered related actions to himself or herself.

L.R. 123(c).

The instant actions are related because they involve the same Plaintiffs requesting damages for the same injuries (mesothelioma and loss of consortium). Additionally, Defendants in the current action and the related action are each potentially liable for Plaintiffs' injuries, as all Defendants in both actions are alleged to be responsible for exposing Plaintiff Dennis Payne to asbestos during his time in the California Merchant Academy in Vallejo, California, in the 1970s, contributing to cause his mesothelioma. Thus, trial in both cases will involve similar issues, such as which products contributed to cause Mr. Payne's disease, the percentage fault of each Defendant, the nature of Mr. Payne's damages, and many other issues. Consequently, assignment to the same judge would "effect a substantial savings of judicial effort." L.R. 123(a), see also L.R. 123(c).

Relating the cases under Local Rule 123, however, merely has the result that both actions are assigned to the same judge, it does not consolidate the actions. Under the regular practice of this Court, related cases are generally assigned to the judge and magistrate judge to whom the first filed action was assigned. Should either party wish to consolidate the actions, the appropriate motion or stipulation must be filed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action denominated 2:22-cv-00939-JAM-KJN is reassigned to District Judge Troy L. Nunley and Magistrate Judge Allison Claire, and the caption shall read 2:22-cv-00939-TLN-AC. Any dates currently set in 2:22-cv-00939-JAM-KJN are hereby VACATED. The Clerk of the Court is to issue the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sources

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