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.

Vernon P. Lannes v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.

May 7, 2012

VERNON P. LANNES
v.
AIR & LIQUID SYS. CORP., ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Percy Anderson, United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Paul Songco N/A N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None None

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS-ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by defendant Crane Co. The removed Complaint alleges that plaintiff Vernon P. Lannes ("Plaintiff"), a former Boiler Tender in the U.S. Navy from 1962 to 1966, contracted mesothelioma through exposure to asbestos contained in products manufactured by Defendants for use in naval ships. Plaintiff alleges that his exposure occurred "at various locations within the State of California and Washington, including but not limited to" Long Beach, CA, and San Diego, CA, and on the high seas aboard the USS Fletcher and USS Duncan. Plaintiff is a citizen of Minnesota presently in hospice care in Starbuck, Minnesota.

The Court orders the parties to show cause, in writing not to exceed 15 pages, why this action should not be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (the "District of Minesota"), for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interests of justice. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 124(a), 1404(a). All factual matters relied upon in the parties' submissions must be supported by appropriate declarations and admissible evidence. To assist the Court in determining whether transfer is appropriate and in the interest of justice, the parties are directed to address the following, in addition to sharing their beliefs as to which forum is more convenient for the parties and witnesses:

1. Whether this action could have been brought in the District of Minnesota;

2. Whether venue is appropriate in the District of Minnesota;

3. What contacts, if any, each of the parties has to the Central District of California (the "Central District") and the District of Minnesota;

4. What connection Plaintiff's causes of action have to the Central District and the District of Minnesota, including the length of time Plaintiff was working with or otherwise exposed to Defendants' asbestos-containing products ...


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.