Benshoof

Benshoof v. National Gypsum Co.

Good Law
978 F.3d 475
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 14, 1992Nos. 91-16047, 91-16049, 91-16050California1,052 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Plaintiffs-Appellants James Benshoof, Goldman England, and Gerald Dube are suing several asbestos manufacturers for damages arising under Arizona law. They allege injuries resulting from their occupational exposure to asbestos in the various defendants’ products. The district court granted summary judgment for one of the defendants, appellee Owens-Corning Fiberglas (OCF), dismissing the actions as to it on the ground that the plaintiffs’ affidavits were insufficient to establish that OCF products proximately caused their injuries. Benshoof v. National Gypsum Co., 761 F.Supp. 677, 680-81 (D.Ariz.1991). The district court certified the dismissal as a final judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) and this timely appeal followed. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

Our review of the pleadings and affidavits before the district court convinces us that the appellants have not sustained their summary judgment burden. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 , 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Appellants’ submissions failed to present facts sufficient to demonstrate “some reasonable connection between defendant’s act or omission and plaintiff’s…

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.