11 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · July 7, 2022
Elorreaga v. Rockwell Automation, Inc. (2022)
The court granted General Electric and ViacomCBS's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages and loss of consortium damages under general maritime law, but denied it as to the California negligence and strict…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · June 28, 2017
Herman v. Ametek (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (NO. VI), 2017)
Maynard Herman and his wife Irene sued Ametek, Inc. and other companies in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. They alleged that Mr. Herman's work exposed him to asbestos and that he developed mesothelioma. Defendants removed the case to federal…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · August 14, 2020
Hailey v. Air and Liquid Systems Corporation (2020)
The estate and family of Charles Anthony Shockley sued several equipment makers after he died of pleural mesothelioma in January 2016. Mr. Shockley served in the Navy from 1968 to 1972 as a machinist mate on the destroyer USS Henderson, working…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · March 30, 2021
Pizarro v. National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (2021)
Renato Pizarro and his wife sued NASSCO, Pep Boys and other companies, alleging his mesothelioma came from asbestos exposure. The opinion describes two sources. One was the Navy overhaul of the USS Bristol County, where plaintiffs say NASSCO removed…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Central District of California · September 6, 2013 · in the opinion
Lara v. CBS Corp. (2013)
…2013. United States District Court, C.D. California. CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL AUDREY B. COLLINS, District Judge. Proceedings: ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (In Chambers) Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Immediately Remand Plaintiffs…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · June 24, 2024 · in the opinion
Marcus v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2024)
…causation standard, and then arguing that the second "substantial factor" prong is not met). Only in its reply does Eaton raise doubts about Plaintiff's actual bystander exposure to its asbestos-containing electrical products. Dkt. No…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · March 30, 2023 · in the opinion
Elorreaga v. Rockwell Automation, Inc. (2023)
…reliability, the Court "assess\[es\] the \[expert's\] reasoning or methodology, using as appropriate such criteria as testability, publication in peer reviewed literature, and general acceptance." Id. at 564. III. DISCUSSION As an initial matter, the…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · June 7, 2016 · in the opinion
Murphy v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. (2016)
…with a motion and proposed order to have the exceptions set for hearing, in state court. In general, "\[a\] waiver of the right to remove must be clear and unequivocal." Furthermore, as explained in Bourdier v…
-
Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · March 24, 2020 · in the opinion
Shaw v. American Friction (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2020)
…is the proper standard under Delaware law, and the General Scheduling Order expressly requires a "showing of good cause" to modify the scheduling order.\[28\] To assess good cause, as the Special Master and Superior Court…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · October 28, 2019 · in the opinion
Kardos v. Armstrong Pumps, Inc. (2019)
…Note: Rule 1035.2 sets forth the general principle that a motion for summary judgment is based on an evidentiary record which entitles the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. \ \ \ Pa.R.C…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · September 27, 2023 · in the opinion
Marcus v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2023)
…officer removal statute, Leite, 749 F.3d at 1122 ("We recognize that defendants enjoy much broader removal rights under the federal officer removal statute than they do under the general removal statute\[.\]"); Durham, 445 F.3d…