In re Toy Asbestos Litigation

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 26, 20214:19-cv-00325California3,203 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

18 Plaintiffs Agnes Toy and Thomas Toy, Jr. initially filed this action in Alameda Superior 19 Court against over forty Defendants, alleging that Thomas H. Toy, Sr. developed malignant 20 mesothelioma and later died from exposure to asbestos-containing products or equipment that 21 Defendants either manufactured or supplied. See Dkt. No. 1-1. Defendants removed this action to 22 federal court, Dkt. No. 1, and Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on July 22, 2019, Dkt. 23 No. 247 (“SAC”). As related to this motion, Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Toy worked with Defendant 24 Bendix brand brakes1 during his service in the U.S. Army and as a civilian machinist at Treasure 25 Island Naval Shipyard. See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 5–6. Before his death, Mr. Toy also testified that he 26 27 may have installed Bendix brakes while as a mechanic in the motor pool for the U.S. Army from 1954 at 1956 and as a civilian machinist at Treasure Island Naval Shipyard between 1974 and 1980. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 442-5, Ex. 12 at 494:3–15, 499:25–501:6, 508:8–24. Plaintiffs offer Dr. Carl Brodkin as a causation expert. See Dkt. No. 489-3, Ex. 2 (“Brodkin…

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.