Judge Blasts Law Firm Over Asbestos Suit
Court Alerts
A Los Angeles judge has blasted one of the nation's leading plaintiffs firms in asbestos litigation for attempting to obtain an upper hand in the case through what he called a "type of judicially sanctioned extortion."
The judge's statements came in a lawsuit filed by Waters & Kraus on behalf of a Los Angeles man who died of mesothelioma in December 2007. Six months before, the man had been deposed in Texas, where the case was first filed. The case has since been re-filed in California. During the past month, industrial product manufacturer Crane Co. sought to exclude the man's deposition from the case. In court papers, Crane argued that the information gleaned from the deposition, which under Texas law is limited to six hours, was insufficient to obtain summary judgment in California.
On April 7, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz, while refusing to grant summary judgment, concluded that Waters & Kraus had re-filed the case in California intentionally as a means to force a settlement. Calling such tactics a "waste of the court's time," Munoz noted that Waters & Kraus has played the same "grisly game of asbestos litigation" in at least nine cases.
Peter Kraus, managing partner of Dallas-based Waters & Kraus, told The National Law Journal that the judge "got it 180 degrees wrong." While not denying the firm's actions, Kraus said that its attorneys must file asbestos cases in jurisdictions where ailing clients don't have to endure lengthy depositions.
"And if they die, the facts necessary to prove their case die with them," he said.
Lawyers for Crane, in an April 24 appellate petition, said that the dispute could affect "potentially hundreds of pending and future asbestos personal injury and wrongful death actions in California."
"I definitely think this is something the defense and plaintiff's bar are going to watch very, very closely, and it will have very important ramifications regardless of whichever way it goes," said Alexandra Epand, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Nixon Peabody who handles asbestos litigation.
Related listings
-
Feds want 3-year term for Mo. mom in MySpace hoax
Court Alerts 05/07/2009A Missouri mother should serve three years in prison for her role in a MySpace hoax on a 13-year-old neighbor who committed suicide, federal prosecutors said in court documents filed Wednesday. Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Krause outlined the governm...
-
Former officer admits robbing Orange County banks
Court Alerts 05/06/2009A former police officer dubbed the "Polite Bandit" has pleaded guilty to robbing banks in Orange County. Vincent Cantu, who served eight years with the Pasadena Police Department, pleaded guilty Tuesday in federal court. Cantu admitted robbing two La...
-
Ex-worker at Iowa plant withdraws ID theft plea
Court Alerts 05/06/2009Defense attorneys for employees at a kosher slaughterhouse accused of helping undocumented workers commit identity theft are trying to get some of the charges dismissed because of a new ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court ruled Monday that un...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.