Livingston

Livingston v. ABB, Inc.

Good Law

100 F. Supp. 3d 894·2015 WL 1549008·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45544

United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaApril 2, 2015Case No. 2:12-cv-01220-WGYCalifornia4,567 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Young, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NOS. 330, 333, 336, and 341]

I. INTRODUCTION

Patricia Ann Livingston, Deborah Selby, Douglas Livingston, and David Livingston (the “Plaintiffs”) bring this action for the wrongful death of Gerald Livingston (“Livingston”), allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products. See Second Am. Compl. Wrongful Death (“Am. Compl.”), ECF No. 187. Motions for summary judgment were filed by four defendants: United Technologies Corporation (“UTC”), Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (“Schneider”), Curtiss-Wright Corporation (“Curtiss-Wright”), and Eaton Corporation (“Eaton”) (collectively, the “Defendants”). On September 10, 2014, the Court issued an order setting out some of its rulings and inviting further briefing. Here, the Court sets out its remaining rulings and explains its reasoning as to all four motions.

*897 A. Procedural Posture

This action was initiated on February 10, 2012, when Livingston and his wife Patricia Ann filed a personal injury complaint in the Central District of California against more than two dozen defendants for exposing Livingston to asbestos. See Compl., ECF No. 1.…

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.