This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/06/2022 at 04:00:08 (UTC).

SUSAN MCKISSACK, ET AL. VS ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 08/21/2020 SUSAN MCKISSACK filed a Personal Injury - Asbestos Product Liability lawsuit against ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DAVID S. CUNNINGHAM and STUART M. RICE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2139

  • Filing Date:

    08/21/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Asbestos Product Liability

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DAVID S. CUNNINGHAM

STUART M. RICE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

MCKISSACK SUSAN

Defendants

ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION

KELLY MOORE PAINT COMPANY

VIACOM INC.

DOUGLAS OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA

FAMILIAN CORPORATION

FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC. DBA O'HAIR SUPPLY COMPANY SII TO J.I DETERDING CO. INC.

VALERO REFINING COMPANY-CALIFORNIA

CRANE CO.

SPX COOLING TECHNOLOGIES INC.

WESTERN BUILDING MATERIALS CO.

MOOLSON COORS BEVERAGE COMPANY

A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.

KIEWIT PACIFIC CO.

DURABLA MANUFACTURING COMPANY

CSR LTD.

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY

BALTIMORE AIRCOIL COMPANY

26 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

PAUL JOSHUA

Defendant Attorneys

CAMPAGNE INGRID K.

DEJARDIN BRADFORD JOHN

DUMONT RICHARD D.

JAMISON KEVIN D.

SCHIRM BARRY R.

GOETZ ANDY JUSTIN

PETTY ROSS MORTON

NORMAN JAMIE OEHRLE

BARBER STEVEN J.

BLEICHNER BRAD D.

CURLIANO JASON J.

DAVIS GEOFFREY M.

DUFFY JOSEPH

FOLEY PATRICK JAMES

HUGO EDWARD ROGER

LANGBORD PETER BENNETT

NICHOLS STEPHEN M.

RASMUSSEN JENNIFER C.

AMEELE KEITH MICHAEL

5 More Attorneys Available

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

6/22/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Request for Dismissal

6/27/2022: Request for Dismissal

Notice - DEFENDANT SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIAS NOTICE OF TAKING OF CALENDAR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

6/27/2022: Notice - DEFENDANT SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIAS NOTICE OF TAKING OF CALENDAR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED AND UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FAMILIAN CORPS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

6/29/2022: Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED AND UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FAMILIAN CORPS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO ULTRAMAR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

6/29/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO ULTRAMAR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO FAMILIAN CORP MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

6/29/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO FAMILIAN CORP MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED AND UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ULTRAMAR INC.S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

6/29/2022: Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED AND UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ULTRAMAR INC.S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED AND UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT METALCLAD INSULATION LLCS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

6/29/2022: Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED AND UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT METALCLAD INSULATION LLCS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

6/29/2022: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

6/29/2022: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

6/29/2022: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO FAMILIAN MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

6/29/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO FAMILIAN MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

6/29/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT METALCLAD INSULATION LLCS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

6/29/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT METALCLAD INSULATION LLCS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF PETER C. BEIRNE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT METALCLAD INSULATION LLCS MOTION FOR UMMARY JUDGMENT

6/29/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF PETER C. BEIRNE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT METALCLAD INSULATION LLCS MOTION FOR UMMARY JUDGMENT

Notice - DEFENDANT SPX COOLING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.S NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OFF CALENDAR

6/30/2022: Notice - DEFENDANT SPX COOLING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.S NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OFF CALENDAR

Notice - NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OFF CALENDAR

7/1/2022: Notice - NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OFF CALENDAR

Request for Dismissal

5/25/2022: Request for Dismissal

278 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/15/2022
  • Hearing08/15/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department 15 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2022
  • Hearing08/01/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department 15 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2022
  • Hearing07/15/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department 15 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2022
  • Hearing07/15/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department 15 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2022
  • Hearing07/15/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department 15 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2022
  • Hearing07/15/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department 15 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2022
  • Hearing07/15/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department 15 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2022
  • Hearing07/15/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department 15 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2022
  • DocketNotice (of Taking Motion for Summary Judgment Off Calendar); Filed by Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2022
  • DocketDefendant SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc.?s Notice of Taking Motion for Summary Judgment Off Calendar; Filed by SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
296 More Docket Entries
  • 09/08/2020
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons; Filed by Susan McKissack (Plaintiff); Randall McKissack (Plaintiff); Scott McKissack (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons; Filed by Susan McKissack (Plaintiff); Randall McKissack (Plaintiff); Scott McKissack (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons; Filed by Susan McKissack (Plaintiff); Randall McKissack (Plaintiff); Scott McKissack (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons; Filed by Susan McKissack (Plaintiff); Randall McKissack (Plaintiff); Scott McKissack (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 08/27/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Susan McKissack (Plaintiff); Randall McKissack (Plaintiff); Scott McKissack (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Susan McKissack (Plaintiff); Randall McKissack (Plaintiff); Scott McKissack (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******2139 Hearing Date: August 1, 2022 Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 1

Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence about the decedent’s smoking history as irrelevant and prejudicial. Defendants argue the evidence is relevant to his life expectancy and damages, and that their experts will testify the smoking history reduced his life expectancy. Defendants also argue it is relevant to Plaintiffs’ failure to warn claims because it shows the decedent would not have followed warnings because he did not follow warnings about smoking.

The motion is granted as to arguments that smoking evidence is relevant to the failure to warn claims. Defendants did not show that smoking cigarettes (which are highly addictive) is similar to working with asbestos-containing products (unlikely to be highly addictive), such that the evidence has any probative value regarding whether the decedent would have followed warnings about products containing asbestos.

The motion is denied as to life expectancy and damages. The evidence is relevant to those issues.

The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 2

Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence of or reference to their expert’s religious practices and beliefs, his association with the BWell Clinic, and prior court orders about him as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.

The expert’s religious practices and beliefs are irrelevant to this case and unduly prejudicial. If the expert testifies about providing the medical treatments based on the writings of L. Ron Hubbard, then he may be cross-examined about the basis for those medical treatments. Likewise, the expert’s past association with BWell Clinic, which does not appear to have treated for asbestos exposure, is not relevant to the expert’s opinions in this case and will cause an undue amount trial time and jury confusion.

Plaintiffs attach the following court decisions regarding the expert’s prior opinions as Exhibit C: (1) a 2010 case from a federal court applying Ohio law and Daubert about air emissions from a refinery; (2) a 2011 Sixth Circuit case applying Daubert concerning opinions on exposure to benzene, (3) a 2005 case from a federal court in Louisiana applying Louisiana law and Daubert about exposure to a glycol, (4) a 2009 federal case from Mississippi about pancreatic cancer caused by a chemical agent applying Daubert, (5) a 2007 case from Texas about exposure to creosote applying Texas law, (6) a 2003 federal case from Hawaii about chemical fumigants applying Daubert, (7) a 2008 decision from Los Angeles Superior Court about toxic mold, mildew and fungus, (8) a 2007 decision from New Mexico state court about chemical exposure causing lupus, and (9) a 2007 hearing transcript from a New Mexico state court hearing about some kind of chemical exposure. Only one case applied California law. No case involved asbestos. Therefore, these cases involved different law and different facts. Allowing examination about these decisions will require significant trial time and confuse the jury, as the parties will spend substantial time explaining the underlying facts of those cases and the expert’s analysis in those cases to try to establish that the situations in these cases were similar or distinct from the situation here.

The motion is granted.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 3

Plaintiffs move to preclude evidence about the contents of the complaint and former defendants no longer in this case.

The request to exclude mention of the contents of the complaint is impossible – the trial is about the allegations in the complaint. Therefore, this part of the motion is denied. If a defendant improperly refers to the complaint, Plaintiffs should object at that time.

That Plaintiff sued other defendants who are no longer part of the case is not relevant, but the liability of other former defendants may be relevant. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, a motion to exclude evidence about the liability of tortfeasors not present at trial is deemed made and denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial. Plaintiffs did not show good cause to depart from this order. Therefore this part of the motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

The motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 4

Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence of and reference to exposures to the products of former defendants. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, a motion to exclude evidence about the liability of tortfeasors not present at trial is deemed made and denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial. Plaintiff did not show good cause to depart from this order.

Therefore the motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 5

This motion appears to ask that any PMK witness be excluded from testifying about information for which that person lacks personal knowledge. Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 5 does not appear in the court file. This motion does not appear to identify any specific testimony at issue, making the motion too vague. A party should object at trial if the party believe the witness has no foundation to answer the question.

The motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Defendant’s MIL Nos. 1, 14

Defendants Ultramar, Inc. and Metalclad move to bifurcate punitive damages. The motion is granted.

Defendant’s MIL No. 2

Defendant Ultramar, Inc. moves for an order requiring 48-hour notice of exhibits and witnesses. This is not a proper motion in limine. The parties should raise trial procedure issues with the trial court. The motion is denied.

Defendant’s MIL No. 3

Defendant Ultramar, Inc. moves to exclude testimony from Plaintiffs’ expert Charles Ay about (1) the decedent’s work at the Ultramar Wilmington Refinery in 1995, (2) any insulation, gaskets or packing at the refinery containing asbestos in 1995, (3) the decedent’s exposure to asbestos at the refinery in 1995 on the ground, and (4) his asbestosis.

Defendant argues there is no evidence about the decedent’s work in 1995 and therefore no foundation for Ay’s opinions. In the ruling on Ultramar’s motion for summary judgment, the Court explained that Plaintiffs had failed to submit any evidence, either in their discovery responses or in opposition to the motion, establishing the work the decedent did at the refinery in 1995. Likewise, in opposition to this motion, Plaintiffs do not identify any evidence about the work decedent did in 1995 while working at the refinery. Therefore Ay’s opinion that the decedent was exposed to asbestos in 1995 while working at the refinery is based on speculation unsupported by any evidence.

Defendant argues Ay’s asbestosis is irrelevant, prejudicial and will confuse issues and mislead the jury. Plaintiffs argue it goes to his credibility as a witness. Plaintiffs do not show that is relevant to the issues in dispute in this case. Rather than establishing Ay’s credibility, evidence of his disease is more likely to be prejudicial because the jury will sympathize with Ay.

The motion is granted.

Defendant’s MIL No. 4

Defendant Ultramar, Inc. moves to exclude evidence of past medical expenses except those actually paid. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion in limine is deemed made and denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial. Defendant has not shown good cause to depart from that order.

Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 5

Defendant Ultramar, Inc. moves to exclude references to asbestos at the Champlin Refinery before 1988 when Ultramar acquired the refinery. In denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Court ruled that Defendant’s assumption of asbestos liabilities when it acquired the refinery was an issue for trial. Therefore, evidence of asbestos before 1988 is relevant.

The motion is denied.

Defendant’s MIL No. 6

This motion appears to be made by Familian Corp. to exclude evidence and argument that a supplier has a duty to inspect or test and is held to the knowledge of an expert. This motion does not appear in the court file. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion in limine is deemed made and denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial. Defendant has not shown good cause to depart from that order.

Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 7

This motion appears to be made by Familian Corp. to exclude evidence and argument that a defendant had a post-sale duty to warn. This motion does not appear in the court file. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion in limine is deemed made and denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial. Defendant has not shown good cause to depart from that order.

Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 8

Defendant Metalclad seeks to exclude expert testimony about whether exposure was a substantial factor in cause a disease. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion in limine is deemed made and denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial. Defendant has not shown good cause to depart from that order.

Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 9

Defendant Metalclad seeks an order that strict products liability does not apply to a contractor defendant. This is not a proper motion in limine. It seeks to adjudicate the second cause of action for strict liability in favor of Defendant. The motion is denied.

Defendant’s MIL No. 10

Defendant Metalclad seeks to exclude opinions by lay witnesses about whether products contain asbestos. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion in limine is deemed made and denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial. Defendant has not shown good cause to depart from that order.

Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 11

Defendant Metalclad seek to preclude argument that knowledge of asbestos-related trade groups may be imputed to Defendant. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion in limine is deemed made and denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial. Defendant has not shown good cause to depart from that order.

Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 12

Defendant Metalclad moves to exclude evidence of EPA and OSHA commentary on the causal connection between exposure to asbestos and the development of disease, as well as the French government’s ban on chrysotile asbestos. Plaintiffs argue the motion is vague, and that evidence of governmental actions is relevant to the defendants’ state of knowledge.

Plaintiffs did not show that there is any evidence any defendant was aware of the French ban on chrysotile asbestos or the reasons why the French government banned it. Allowing that evidence will consume an undue amount of trial time exploring the bases for the French ban. The evidence would have little probative value because it did not apply to work places in the United States.

The motion to exclude evidence about domestic governmental actions is too vague. The information in existence before the last date of alleged exposure is potentially relevant to show Defendant’s knowledge and notice.

The motion is granted as to the French ban and otherwise denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 13

Defendant Metalclad moves to exclude evidence of workers’ compensation claims. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion in limine is deemed made and granted. Plaintiff did not show good cause to depart from this order.

Therefore, the motion is granted.

The moving party is to give notice.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where DOUGLAS OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA is a litigant

Latest cases where MOOLSON COORS BEVERAGE COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where VALERO REFINING COMPANY-CALIFORNIA is a litigant

Latest cases where WESTERN BUILDING MATERIALS CO. is a litigant