California Toxic Tort Law

We are a recognized leader in the defense of claims that involve allegations of exposure to chemicals. Since our founding, we have represented clients in hundreds of these scientifically intensive, medically advanced, and uniquely complicated matters, including cases that involve allegations of exposure to chemicals such as:

Benzene and other petroleum hydrocarbons including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel
Volatile organic compounds and organic solvents
Pesticides
Formaldehyde
Styrene
Diacetyl
Paint
Mold
Lead
Silica
Welding Fumes
Carbon Monoxide
Carbide
Tungsten

We combine an extensive understanding of the legal and scientific issues with our in-depth knowledge of the industry to successfully defend clients in our most challenging cases. Our clients include manufacturers, distributors, retailers, material suppliers, property owners, end-users, and public utilities, in the following industries:

Paints and Coatings
Chemicals and Solvents
Food Flavorings
Automobile Products
Cosmetics
Hair Care Products
Raw Metals and Steel
Herbicides, Pesticides and Fertilizers
Printing Products
Natural and Artificial Stone Slab Fabrication

We handle cases involving anywhere from one to multiple plaintiffs, brought either as class actions, aggregate actions, or separately filed lawsuits spanning multiple jurisdictions. This includes matters filed or removed to federal court, under diversity principles and under the federal Class Action Fairness Act, as well as those placed in the federal multidistrict litigation program. As this litigation often involves complex multi-party, multi-jurisdictional matters, our attorneys take into consideration the individual needs and perspectives of each client while achieving the cost-sharing efficiencies and other benefits associated with multi-party litigation.

The attorneys in our toxic tort practice are also familiar with the complex science, toxicological, and epidemiological facets involved in defending these claims. We have developed relationships with many of the premier experts in the field to call upon to help prepare and support our clients’ defenses.

Our philosophy is to work closely with our clients to develop a defense strategy unique to each client and each case in order to obtain the client’s stated objectives in the most cost-effective way. One way in which we do this is by identifying early exit strategies that allow our clients to avoid unnecessary fees and costs associated with prolonged litigation. Our case-ending approach to litigation has resulted in numerous early dismissals and successful rulings on motions for summary judgment all with as little impact to our clients’ bottom line as possible. Although we are able to secure a dismissal or settle on favorable terms prior to trial in many of the cases we handle, our attorneys are fully prepared to litigate our clients’ cases at every stage of the legal process.

Indeed, our reputation as a defense firm with skilled litigators on top of the latest developments in toxic tort litigation has also resulted in invitations to speak and share our knowledge with clients and at industry conferences.

Silica Litigation

We are at the defense forefront of the current boom in silica litigation fueled by a rising number of cases of silicosis in the State of California.

In these cases, plaintiffs allege that their exposure to silica as a result of working with and around natural and artificial stone slabs caused them to develop a type of lung disease known as silicosis. While the allegation that exposure to silica and the development of silicosis is linked to work in the stone fabrication industry is novel, at least when it comes to litigation on the subject in California, the allegation that exposure to silica causes silicosis generally is not. For this reason, our arsenal of defense strategies as it relates to toxic tort cases apply with equal force to these cases.

In light of the volume of cases at issue, our cost-saving and case-ending strategies are all the more important. With a dedicated team of attorneys and staff working together to manage the many moving parts of this litigation, we are prepared to face and overcome all of the challenges this litigation brings. Our involvement in the defense of so many of the cases at issue allows us to identify trends across the litigation early and adjust our defense strategy for each client accordingly. Moreover, it allows us to distribute fees and costs for work up common to all of the cases, including for example as it relates to experts, across multiple cases.

Few are in the unique position of being able to rely on experience in what is otherwise a very new niche of toxic tort litigation. Because our involvement in these cases spans back to one of the very first of its kind, including one of the very first to go to trial, we can.

Representative Successes

Gustavo Reyes-Gonzalez v. Aaroha Radiant Marble & Granite Slabs, et al.

Obtained summary adjudication in favor of four stone slab distributor defendants on the plaintiff’s fraudulent concealment cause of action and plaintiff’s punitive damages claims, in a personal injury silicosis case, the first case of its type to go to trial in the United States.
Harkin v. Refinery Labor Company

Successfully secured a defense verdict for a refinery labor company in a personal injury mesothelioma case alleging exposure to asbestos during work at a San Francisco Bay area refinery. Following four weeks of trial, the jury found that no asbestos exposure was attributable to the defendant company.
Desimone v. Select 1 Realty

Represented owners and managers of a leased residential property where the plaintiffs/tenants claimed that a four-month-old baby died as a result of exposure to mold, allegedly caused by water leaks in the home. Following the retention and review of the case by our expert, the defense position was that the baby died as a result of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). The plaintiffs ultimately accepted an extremely low value settlement.
LaMonica v. Consumer Products Company

Secured a defense verdict for a worldwide consumer products company in a personal injury mesothelioma case alleging exposure from a personal care product allegedly tainted with asbestos and asbestos-containing joint compound products used on the job. After more than three months of trial, the jury returned a resounding 12-0 decision for our client.
DePree v. Wholesale Distributor

Secured a non-suit during trial for a wholesale distributor of talc that was used in the manufacture of other products in a case involving a maintenance man who developed mesothelioma.
Gutierres v. Balch Petroleum, et al.

Obtained a defense verdict for a general engineering contractor after a 5-week jury trial involving claims of exposure to carbon monoxide and other exhaust fumes.
Graves v. Meredith

Summary judgment granted in favor of a building owner based on the statute of limitations for injuries allegedly related to its “sick building.” The court of appeal upheld the judgment and awarded costs.
Lee v. ITW Food Equipment Group LLC

Summary judgment granted in favor of a refrigeration equipment maintenance company based on no duty of care. Multiple plaintiffs claimed personal injuries as a result of prolonged exposure to carbon monoxide in the workplace.
Cervantes v. Bortz Products, Inc., et al.

Obtained a dismissal on behalf of a chemical manufacturer and distributor in a personal injury case involving alleged exposure to products containing benzene or benzene derivatives after meeting and conferring with plaintiff’s counsel regarding the client’s anticipated motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations.
Lopez v. Volk

Successfully resolved a difficult lead exposure case involving eight children claiming exposure to excessive amounts of lead in an apartment complex.
Dismissal of manufacturer following hearing on a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction in claim brought by a plaintiff relating to the distribution of stone products to his employer.