Walsworth Attorneys Obtain Summary Judgment for Client in Asbestos Case

Walsworth Partner Edward Hartley and Associate Mariam Pambukyan recently obtained summary judgment for their client in an asbestos related personal injury lawsuit. Plaintiff, in the matter, alleged that he was diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of being exposed to asbestos from, among other sources, working with (or being around others working with) automotive friction parts, including brakes and clutches.

In California, summary judgment motions have an extremely high burden on the moving party because it asks the court for a judgment on the merits of the case before the trial, making it difficult to win. With assistance from our litigation support staff and guidance from Mr. Hartley, Ms. Pambukyan crafted legal arguments intertwining the written evidence and deposition testimony obtained in the case to support their motion for summary judgment. They were able to convince the court to dispose of the case based on the law and strategic evidence presented in their moving papers and subsequent briefing.

The premise of the summary judgment motion was that Walsworth’s client shifted the burden to the plaintiff – due to plaintiff’s factually devoid discovery responses and deposition testimony that he had never heard of our client, and thus did not have any information to support his allegations against the client – to establish a triable issue of fact. They then argued that plaintiff did not provide, nor could he provide, any admissible evidence to meet his burden of proof against the allegations he made against our client specifically. Plaintiff could not show that he was exposed to asbestos by our client – he could not associate our client with any products or services and could not recall doing any work with or handling any products from our client. As he could not show these things, the plaintiff could not show that he was exposed to asbestos by the actions of our client and their product, and thus could not prove causation, an essential element of his causes of action against our client.

The Court found that Walsworth’s attorneys successfully shifted the burden and plaintiff did not present, nor could he present, any admissible evidence of a material fact warranting trial. As such, it was the held that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof and the matter was disposed of in favor of the defense.

Walsworth would like to thank Mr. Hartley, Ms. Pambukyan, and members of our staff for their hard work on this case. For more information on the issues presented in this matter, please contact Edward Hartley or Mariam Pambukyan.