Abarca

Abarca v. FRANKLIN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT

Good Law
813 F. Supp. 2d 1199·2011 WL 3875414·2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98239
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 31, 20112:07-cr-00388California7,816 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wanger, J.

MEMORANDUM DECISION RE: BAC DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. (PHASE 1)

INTRODUCTION

Defendants Merck & Co., Inc. Amsted Industries Inc., and Baltimore Aircoil Company, Inc. (collectively, “BAC Defendants”) bring this motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”), or in the alternative, motion for new trial following jury verdicts in the first phase (“Phase 1”) of this multi-party, multi-phase toxic tort case.

According to Defendants, Plaintiffs either failed to present or presented insufficient evidence of exposure to contaminants which allegedly originated from a now-closed cooling tower manufacturing facility (the “BAC site”) operated by entities that were formerly owned by BAC Defendants. Specifically, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) was not met regarding the surface water and air pathways, as required under the Phase 1 Court Order Modifying Scheduling Conference Order (“Phase 1 Pretrial Order”). (Doc. 540.) BAC Defendants further contend that Plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence regarding Defendants legal responsibility for release of contaminates at…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.