IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON



Similar documents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION. Plaintiff, Defendant. JURISDICTION 1.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY as Successor in Interest to the ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, C O M P L A I N T

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

Case 3:14-cv HU Document 1 Filed 04/23/14 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 01/21/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS: the Complaint which is herewith served upon you within twenty (20) days after the service of

MEMORANDUM. Preface. Brief Answer

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE NO. Defendant

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:10-cv SRU Document 1 Filed 12/10/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Case 3:08-cv JAP-JJH Document 1 Filed 02/20/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

COMPLAINT. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF] hereby sues the Defendants, [DEFENDANT #1], [DEFENDANT INTRODUCTION

Haro was at home with his family when they saw an intruder lurking in their backyard. When

Date: February 16, 2001

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte Division. Chapter 11

Broadband Graphics - infringement of Patent Law and Procedure

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

Appendix I: Select Federal Legislative. Proposals Addressing Compensation for Asbestos-Related Harms or Death

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRENCE and Marie Domin, Plaintiffs, v. SHELBY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant.

ATTACHMENT E. FORM B: DEFENDANT INTERROGATORIES: To be answered by all defendant and

1416-CV Plaintiff is a resident of Jackson County, Missouri and is the biological mother of

A summary and analysis of Borg-Warner is attached.

Case 1:13-cv SEB-TAB Document 1 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF

Filing # Electronically Filed 12/29/ :48:06 PM

Case 3:14-cv P Document 1 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

FILED 15 JUL 27 AM 9:22

Case 6:14-cv AA Document 14 Filed 01/19/15 Page 1 of 5

Claim Form and Certification for the Metex Asbestos PI Trust

Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY CENTRAL DISTRICT STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte Division. Chapter 11

Case 3:14-cv M Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, SALT LAKE COUNTY STATE OF UTAH. Case No. : Judge:

Voir Dire Questions: Bushmaker v. Rapid American Corp., 09-cv-726-slc

Duty To Warn For Other Manufacturers' Products?

Power Plant Employees and Contractors

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY UPON DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED.

Case Doc 4432 Filed 03/16/15 Entered 03/16/15 09:10:55 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 9

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A Court of Appeals Meyer, J. Took no part, Page and Gildea, JJ.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE. Case No.

Case 3:14-cv AC Document 10 Filed 03/26/14 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#: 43

INGERSOLL RAND CO LTD

IN RE GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES LLC, ET AL.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HORRY COUNTY STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COMPLAINT

HOUSE BILL No Washburne

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

Case 1:10-cv JBS -KMW Document 1 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

California General Interrogatories (Wrongful Death) DEFINITIONS. 1. AREA means the name of the specific structure, building, building

Case 2:10-cv SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

4:15-cv RBH Date Filed 01/29/15 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 10

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY FLORIDA. Case No.

GRAY, L.L.C. 760 ROUTE 10 WEST, SUITE 203 WHIPPANY, NEW JERSEY PH: F: Attorneys for Plaintiff Henry Kent

MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION 2013

i4n 10/28/03 05:08 PM ET Master Complaint No. 12

Case3:15-cv JCS Document1 Filed09/01/15 Page1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORIGIA-~~T ~:J,-~T,>cURT SAVANNAH DIVISION j Ga. NATURE OF THE ACTION

vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff JAMES SCHAIRER, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby sues

Case AJC Document 1 Filed 03/01/2008 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DEFENDANT S ANSWER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

(1) No action shall be filed by plaintiffs' attorneys based on workplace exposure based on any theory other than workers' compensation.

Case 3:15-cv MO Document 1 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 8

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH

JUDGE RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK COMPLAINT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:07-cv LED Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 1 of 5

Case 3:13-cv PK Document 5 Filed 09/19/13 Page 1 of 16 Page ID#: 57

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION. v. Case No. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, STATE OF COLORADO Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80202

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Case5:15-cv HRL Document1 Filed01/28/15 Page1 of 12

Case 3:13-cv AC Document 16 Filed 03/14/14 Page 1 of 11

Personal injury claim" does not include a claim for compensatory benefits pursuant to worker s compensation or veterans benefits.

Case 1:10-cv WGY Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND PROVIDENCE COUNTY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPlAINT

Transcription:

Jeffrey S. Mutnick, OSB #721784 jmutnick@mutnicklaw.com 737 SW Vista Ave. 503-595-1033 Devin N. Robinson, OSB #064879 devin@nwtriallaw.com 6110 N Lombard St., Suite B Portland, OR 97203 503-228-7020 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Kathleen Buczkowski IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON KATHLEEN BUCZKOWSKI, an individual, Case No. 3:12-cv-02042-HU vs. Plaintiff PLAINTIFF S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - PERSONAL INJURY (Strict Liability, Negligence) GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., a Connecticut corporation; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation; OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and VIACOM, INC., a Delaware corporation, as successor-bymerger to CBS Corporation formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation; FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION, a New York corporation; FRED MEYER, INC., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Oregon; GOULDS PUMPS (IPG), INC. successor in interest to Gould s Pumps, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and INGERSOLL RAND COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation, JURY TRIAL REQUESTED Defendants. Page 1 of 7- PLAINTIFF S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PERSONAL INJURY

1. PARTIES a) Plaintiff is an individual and a citizen of the State of Oregon. b) Defendant General Electric Co. is a Connecticut corporation that was engaged in the manufacture, sale, and/or distribution of asbestos-containing products including, but not limited to, generators, turbines and associated gaskets, sealants and insulation. c) Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a New York corporation that engaged in the business of providing a variety of insurance products, including life insurance, casualty and liability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance to a variety of customers, including corporations engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of asbestos and asbestoscontaining products. Beginning in approximately 1929 and continuing thereafter, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, at the request of, and as part of its business service to, one or more of its insurance customers, conducted or commissioned studies and medical research, medical investigations, medical studies, and collection of medical and epidemiological data, concerning the disease producing capabilities of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials. In the 1930s and 1940s, Metropolitan Life directly transmitted and indirectly disseminated the results of such investigation and studies to a variety of individuals and industrial companies involved in asbestos-related industries, including one or more of the defendants named herein. These medical investigation studies and information included substantial evidence of the diseaseproducing capability of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company thereafter engaged in a continuous and consistent course of conduct suppressing, minimizing, understating and denying the evidence of disease causing properties of asbestos and asbestos-related material. d) Defendant Owens-Illinois, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of asbestos-containing materials including insulation. Page 2 of 7- PLAINTIFF S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PERSONAL INJURY

e) Defendant Viacom, Inc is a successor-by-merger to CBS Corporation and formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation, is a Delaware corporation that was engaged in the manufacture, sale, and/or distribution of asbestos-containing products including, but not limited to, generators, turbines and associated gaskets, sealants and insulation. f) Defendant Foster Wheeler Corporation is a New York corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale, and/or distribution of asbestos-containing products including, but not limited to insulation, engines, gaskets, packing, turbines, and related component materials g) Defendant Gould s Pumps (IPG), was and is a Delaware corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale, and/or distribution of asbestos-containing products including, but not limited to pumps and related sealing products. h) Defendant Ingersoll-Rand was and is a New Jersey corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale, and/or distribution of asbestos-containing products including, but not limited to pumps, compressors, valves and related sealing products. 2. JURISDICTION This court has jurisdiction under 28 USC 1332 by diversity of citizenship in a matter seeking more than $75,000.00 in damages. 3. VENUE This is a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred and therefore venue is predicated upon 28 USC 1391(b)(2). Page 3 of 7- PLAINTIFF S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PERSONAL INJURY

4. FACTS Plaintiff s father worked in the shipbuilding and construction trades in Oregon, including in Multnomah County, during the 1940 s. During this employment, Plaintiff s father worked with asbestos and asbestos-containing materials in the performance of his work, and worked with workers who handled, installed or fabricated asbestos-containing materials. During this time period, Plaintiff was a child who lived in the same household as her father. Plaintiff s father brought asbestos fibers into the home on his clothes and body, exposing Plaintiff to airborne asbestos fibers. 5. At all material times, some of the Defendants regularly engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, selling, distributing, applying, installing, and/or rebranding asbestos-containing materials and products. Some of the defendants required the use of asbestos-containing materials for repair, maintenance and/or installation of their products at locations where the Plaintiff was present and/or where Plaintiff s father was present. 6. At all material times, the Defendants conducted regular, sustained and not isolated business activity in the State of Oregon. 7. Defendants asbestos-containing products and materials released respirable asbestos fibers capable of causing Mesothelioma if inhaled by individuals, including the Plaintiff. Page 4 of 7- PLAINTIFF S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PERSONAL INJURY

Due to Plaintiff s exposure to Defendants asbestos-containing products and materials, Plaintiff contracted Mesothelioma. 8. 9. Plaintiff was diagnosed with Mesothelioma within two years of the filing of this suit. 10. GENERAL DAMAGES As a result of the injuries set forth above, Plaintiff sustained general and/or noneconomic damages in the amount of $750.000.00. 11. MEDICAL BILLS Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical bills in an amount to be proved at trial. 12. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Strict Liability) The asbestos or asbestos-containing products of the Defendant suppliers, manufacturers or distributers were unreasonably dangerous and defective in that: (a) The Defendants did not provide sufficient warnings and/or instructions of the harm caused by exposure to the Defendants asbestos-containing products; (b) The asbestos-containing products of the Defendants were capable of causing Mesothelioma if inhaled by individuals, including the Plaintiff. Page 5 of 7- PLAINTIFF S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PERSONAL INJURY

13. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Negligence) Defendants were negligent generally and in one or more of the following particulars: (a) The Defendants did not provide sufficient warnings and/or instructions of the harm caused by exposure to the Defendant's asbestos-containing products when the Defendants, prior to the period of the Plaintiff s exposure to asbestos and asbestoscontaining products, possessed information concerning the adverse effects and disease-producing capabilities of those products; (b) The Defendants failed to withdraw asbestos-containing products from the market prior to the Plaintiff's exposure, when the Defendants possessed information concerning the adverse effects and disease-producing capabilities of those products; (c) The Defendants failed to determine the level of airborne asbestos fibers emitted by their products when the products were being used by the end user; (d) The Defendants failed to conduct tests to determine the amount of asbestos to which the Plaintiff, or similarly situated workers, would be exposed, when engaging in the use of the products; and (e) The Defendants failed to warn individual workers, including the Plaintiff, regarding the hazards associated with the use of the product. 14. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff requests a trial by jury. Page 6 of 7- PLAINTIFF S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PERSONAL INJURY

15. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays the court that it grant the following relief: a. On her first claim for relief, for non-economic damages of $750,000.00, and for economic damages for past and future medical expenses in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial; b. On her second claim for relief, for non-economic damages of $750,000.00, for economic damages for past and future medical expenses in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial; c. For her legally recoverable costs and disbursements incurred herein; and d. For such other and further relief as the court deems equitable and just. DATED this 5 th day of December, 2012. Plaintiff requests a trial by jury. LAW OFFICE OF LAW OFFICES OF DEVIN ROBINSON, P.C. /s/ Devin N. Robinson Devin N. Robinson, OSB #064879 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff devin@nwtriallaw.com 503-228-7020 Trial Attorney: Jeffrey S. Mutnick, OSB #721784 /s/ Devin N. Robinson Devin N. Robinson, OSB #064879 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff devin@nwtriallaw.com 503-228-7020 Page 7 of 7- PLAINTIFF S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PERSONAL INJURY