United States District Court, C.D. California
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUPPORTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT PRYSMIAN POWER & CABLE SYSTEMS USA, a/k/a PRYSMIAN CABLES & SYSTEMS USA, LLC
MANUEL L. REAL, District Judge.
The Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication of Issues (causes of action and punitive damage claim) by defendant Prysmian Power & Cable Systems USA, a.k.a. Prysmian Cables & Systems USA, LLC ("Prysmian") came regularly for hearing on January 27, 2014, in Courtroom 8 of the District Court, the Hon. Manuel L. Real, Judge presiding.
Plaintiff Paul Olds filed no opposition. After considering the admissible evidence, arguments and separate statement provided by Prysmian, the Court hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the entry of the summary judgment requested:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Plaintiff Paul Olds filed no opposition and no objections to any of the evidence supplied by Prysmian Power & Cable Systems USA, aka Prysmian Power & Cable Systems USA, LLC ("Prysmian"). Consequently, the facts supplied by Prysmian in support of its motion are uncontroverted.
2. Summa judgment is appropriate because the pleadings, discovery, declarations, and other evidence on file show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that Prysmian is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
3. Plaintiff's claims against Prysmian arising out of his first-hand exposure to asbestos fail for lack of causation because there is no evidence of exposure to asbestos-containing components for which Prysmian might be liable. Prysmian did not come into existence until approximately 10 years after Plaintiff's last claimed exposure to an allegedly asbestos-containing product.
4. Prysmian can bear no liability for any allegedly defective product manufactured, sold or distributed by any of its claimed predecessor companies, including but not limited to General Cable Corp. or Galite, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Galileo Electro-Optics, Inc. There is no triable issue of material fact to establish that Prysmian and either of those entities (1) had an express or implied agreement that Prysmian would assume or accept liability for the predecessor's products, (2) that the asset purchases by Prysmian from those entities amounts to a consolidation or merger of the two corporations, (3) that Prysmian is a mere continuation of the seller entities, or (4) the transfer of assets to Prysmian was for the fraudulent purpose of escaping liability for the predecessor entities' debts. (See, Monarch Bay II v. Professional Service Industries, Inc. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1216.)
5. For the foregoing reasons, and pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 56, Plaintiff's causes of action set forth in his Complaint should be, and hereby are, dismissed and defendant Prysmian Power & Cable Systems USA, aka Prysmian ...