United States District Court, C.D. California
VICTORIA LUND, individually and as successor-in-interest to WILLIAM LUND, deceased; DAVID LUND, an individual; and SHEILA LUND, an individual, as legal heirs of WILLIAM LUND, Deceased, Plaintiff,
v.
3M COMPANY a/k/a MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS ELECTRIC BOAT CORPORATION
AND GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [DKT. 852]
DEAN
D. PREGERSON United States District Judge.
Presently
before the court is Defendants Electric Boat Corporation and
General Dynamics Corporation’s
(“Defendants”) Motion for Reconsideration of the
court’s Order Denying Summary Adjudication of
Plaintiff’s Strict Liability Claims. (Dkt. 852.) Having
considered the submissions of the parties, heard oral
argument, and reviewed the evidence, the court DENIES the
motion for reconsideration and adopts the following order.
I.
BACKGROUND
The
court has set forth the relevant background in a prior
memorandum of decision addressing Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment. (See Dkt. 845.) In brief,
Plaintiffs, individually and as legal heirs and
representatives of William Lund’s estate, brought this
action to recover for injuries suffered by Mr. Lund, a former
U.S. Navy Machinist Mate. (Dkt. 1, ¶ 8.) According to
Plaintiffs, Mr. Lund’s injuries and mesothelioma
diagnosis were attributable to his exposure to asbestos dust
and fibers during the construction and maintenance of various
U.S. Navy ships manufactured by Defendants. (Id.) In
particular, Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Lund was exposed to
asbestos while working “in the engineering spaces on
the USS Lafayette” at Electric Boat division’s
shipyard and while working on the USS Gato at General
Dynamics’ shipyard. (Plaintiffs’ Responses to
Special Interrogatories Propounded by Defendant General
Dynamics Corporation’s, Set One, attached as Exhibit B
to the Declaration of Lisa M. Rickenbacher
(“Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories
Responses”), Dkt. 622-4, at 4:17-7:15.)
Plaintiffs
filed this action in the Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles, raising claims of negligence, breach of express and
implied warranties, strict liability in tort, and premises
owner/contractor liability. (See Dkt. 1.) The case
was removed to federal court and, on January 30, 2015,
Defendants General Dynamics and Electric Boat filed motions
for summary judgment on each of Plaintiffs’ claims.
(Dkt. Nos. 619 & 622.) On March 1, 2016, the court denied
Defendants’ motions for summary judgment in full. (Dkt.
829.) It later issued a Memorandum of Decision (“Summ.
J. Mem.”) explaining its reasoning. (Dkt. 845.)
Among
the issues raised in Defendants’ Summary Judgment
Motion was whether a strict products liability claim could be
brought against shipbuilders, such as Defendants, who built
custom ships for the U.S. Navy. (Dkt. 622-1 at 6.) Relying on
an out-of-circuit district court case, Defendants argued that
a Navy ship should not be considered a “product”
for purposes of a strict liability claim. (Id.
(citing Mack v. General Electric Co., 896 F.Supp.2d
333, 345 (E.D. Pa. 2012)).) The court in Mack held
that while strict liability could be imposed on manufacturers
of a ship’s various component products, it could not be
imposed on the builder of the ship itself. (Id.)
Applied to the present case, the court acknowledged that
Mack presented persuasive authority but denied
summary judgment on the strict liability claims because it
found that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to
the involvement of other asbestos-containing products besides
Navy ships.
Defendants
then filed this Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. 852.)
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under
Central District of California Local Rule 7-18, a party may
seek reconsideration of a decision on any motion on the
grounds of:
(a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented
to the Court . . . that . . . could not have been known to
the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such
decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a
change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or
(c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material
facts presented to the Court before such decision.
C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18. A motion for reconsideration may not,
however, “in any manner repeat any oral or written
argument made in support of or in opposition to the original
motion.” Id.
III.
DISCUSSION
Defendants’
Motion for Reconsideration raises only a single issue: does
the Ninth Circuit’s decision in McIndoe v.
Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 817 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2016),
which was decided after the court issued its summary judgment
order, require reconsideration of the court’s prior
determination that Defendants were not entitled to summary
judgment on Plaintiff’s strict liability claims.
A. The
Mc ...