Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Abarca, Raul Valencia, et al v. Merk & Co.

August 10, 2011

ABARCA, RAUL VALENCIA, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
MERK & CO., INC., ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS‟ MOTION TO AMEND EIGHT AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 1371)

I.INTRODUCTION.

Pursuant to the discussions at the hearing on July 11, 2011, Plaintiffs move for leave to amend the current, operative complaint, the Eighth Amended Complaint ("Complaint") to allege specific claims against Defendants Merk & Co., Inc. ("Merk"), Amsted Industries, Inc. ("Amsted") and Baltimore Aircoil Company ("BAC"), based upon their alleged vicarious and direct liability for the actions and activities at the former BAC-Pritchard, Inc. facility (the "Site"). Plaintiffs have identified each change to the existing allegations of the Complaint, as well as the substance of new claims sought to be added to the Complaint.

II.FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A.Background.

Plaintiffs allege exposure to chemicals and other substances

as a result of environmental releases related to wood treating activities at the Site. Plaintiffs have amended their complaint several times for various reasons. The Complaint names Merk, Amsted, BAC, and Track Four as Defendants affiliated with the Site. It is disputed whether, to what extent, and at when Defendants, Merk, Amsted and BAC owned, directed actions, remediated, and/or operated the Site.

Corporate liability and/or responsibility for causing releases at the Site has been at issue since the inception of this action. Some discovery was conducted on the issue which was largely curbed when Defendants‟ filed a Cottel motion in March of 2009 and shifted the focus of discovery to the scientific evidence concerning exposure issues. A discovery stay then went into effect around August of 2009 which discontinued all discovery regarding non-exposure issues.

B.Plaintiffs Amendments.

Plaintiffs have added the following statement to identify Defendants as follows:

10. Defendant MERCK & CO., INC., ("MERCK") is a New

Jersey corporation authorized to and doing business in the State of California, County of Merced. From 1970 to 1985, MERCK owned 100% of the issued outstanding shares of common stock of defendant Baltimore Aircoil, Inc. ("BAC"). BAC-Pritchard, Inc. was a wholly-owned subsidiary of BAC from its incorporation in September of 1975 until its dissolution in October of 1993. At all times relevant to this Complaint, MERCK and BAC exercised dominance and control over all the activities of BAC-Pritchard, Inc. Further, BAC-Pritchard, Inc. acted as the agent and/or joint venturer and/or alter ego of MERCK and BAC during all times relevant to this complaint. Further, at all times relevant to this Complaint, MERCK and BAC had knowledge of and ratified the operations, conduct and activities of BAC-Pritchard, Inc. Liability under each claim against this entity as hereinafter alleged, is sought based upon the independent conduct of MERCK, as well as the vicarious liability of MERCK and BAC with regard to the operations, activities and conduct of BAC-Pritchard, Inc."

11. Defendant Amsted Industries, Inc. ("AMSTED") is an Illinois corporation authorized to and doing business in the State of California, County of Merced. From 1985 to the present, defendant Baltimore Aircoil, Inc. ("BAC") has been a wholly-owned subsidiary corporation of AMSTED. BAC-Pritchard, Inc. was a wholly-owned subsidiary of BAC from its incorporation in September of 1975 until its dissolution in October of 1993. At all times relevant to this Complaint, AMSTED and BAC exercised dominance and control over all the activities at BAC-Pritchard, Inc. Further, AMSTED acted as the agent and/or joint venture and/or alter ego of MERCK and BAC during all times relevant to this complaint. Further, at all times relevant to this Complaint, AMSTED and BAC had knowledge of and ratified the operations, conduct and activities of BAC-Pritchard, Inc. Liability under each claim against this entity as hereinafter alleged, is sought based upon the independent conduct of AMSTED, as well as the vicarious liability of AMSTED and BAC with regard to the operations, activities and conduct of BAC-Pritchard, Inc."

12. Defendant Baltimore Aircoil Company, Inc. ("BAC") is an Illinois corporation authorized to and doing business in the State of California, County of Merced. From 1970 to 1985, MERCK owned 100% of the issued outstanding shares of common stock of defendant Baltimore Aircoil, Inc. ("BAC"). BAC-Pritchard, Inc. was a wholly-owned subsidiary of BAC from its incorporation in September of 1975 until its dissolution in October of 1993. From 1985 to the present, defendant Baltimore Aircoil, Inc. ("BAC") has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMSTED. At all times relevant to this Complaint, MERCK, AMSTED and BAC exercised dominance and control over all the activities at BAC-Pritchard, Inc.

Further, AMSTED and MERCK acted as the agent and/or joint venturer and/or alter ego of MERCK and BAC during all times relevant to this complaint. Further, at all times relevant to this Complaint, MERCK, AMSTED and BAC had knowledge of and ratified the operations, conduct and activities of BAC-Pritchard, Inc. Liability under each claim against this entity as hereinafter alleged, is sought based upon the independent conduct of BAC, as ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.