Speck
Speck v. 3M Company
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CHARLES ANTHONY SPECK, et al., Case No. 20-cv-05845-JD
Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS
v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 278, 279 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
12 Defendants General Dynamics Corporation and Bath Iron Works Corporation ask to dismiss the remaining claims in the second amended complaint (SAC) brought by representatives of the estate of John C. Speck. Dkt. Nos. 278, 279. The parties’ familiarity with the record is assumed, and the motions are granted in part. The requests for judicial notice, Dkt. Nos. 285 and 288, are terminated and were not considered for this order. 1. Negligence. Maritime law applies to the negligence claim. See Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 534 (1995). The district courts in our circuit and elsewhere have so concluded. See, e.g., In re Toy Asbestos, No. 19-CV-00325-HSG, 2021 WL 1930992, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2021) (and cases cited therein); Mack v. Gen. Elec. Co., 896 F. Supp. 2d 333, 335…