In Re Pacific Fertility Center Litigation

Background

Plaintiffs A.B., C.D., E.F., G.H., and I.J. brought a putative class action against Chart Industries alleging products liability and failure to recall claims. The court had denied class certification, so the named plaintiffs proceeded to trial on their individual claims. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs on all claims and awarded more than $13 million in damages. Chart then filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) and a motion for a new trial under Rule 59.

The order also states that the plaintiffs brought claims against Pacific Fertility Center and related entities, but those claims had been compelled to arbitration. The motions decided in this order concerned Chart.

Judgment as a Matter of Law

The court denied Chart’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. That motion could succeed only if the evidence permitted one reasonable conclusion contrary to the jury’s conclusion. The court had to view the evidence favorably to the plaintiffs, draw reasonable inferences in their favor, and avoid weighing evidence or deciding witness credibility.

Chart challenged the jury’s finding that it negligently failed to recall or retrofit its TEC 3000 electronic controller. Chart argued that the plaintiffs needed expert testimony about what a reasonable manufacturer would have done and evidence that a government agency had ordered a recall. The court rejected both arguments.

The court explained that California law required proof that Chart sold the controller; knew or reasonably should have known that it was dangerous or likely to be dangerous in a reasonably foreseeable use; learned of the defect after the sale; failed to recall or retrofit the controller; acted differently from what a reasonable seller would have done under similar circumstances; harmed the plaintiffs; and substantially contributed to that harm. The court found no authority requiring expert testimony for this claim, and concluded that the causation issue was within a lay jury’s common experience.

The court also found no requirement under California law for a government-directed recall before a duty to recall or retrofit could arise. It cited evidence that Chart knew of a “SN=0” defect that caused the controllers to lose the ability to accurately monitor liquid-nitrogen levels; identified the issue internally as critical and urgent; had a retrofit available; did not notify Pacific Fertility Center or other customers, offer the retrofit, or issue a recall notice; and knew the controllers were used with cryogenic tanks storing irreplaceable biological material. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding and denied the motion.

Motion for a New Trial

The court also denied Chart’s motion for a new trial. It considered Chart’s arguments about evidentiary rulings, submission of the negligent-failure-to-recall claim to the jury, attorney misconduct, allocation of fault, and excessive noneconomic damages.

On the evidentiary issues, the court upheld its exclusion of Dr. Miller’s exemplar testing because the test did not sufficiently reproduce the conditions involved in the incident and therefore lacked adequate reliability and relevance. The court also upheld allowing plaintiffs’ counsel to question Chart expert Ron Parrington about an email concerning another tank implosion because Chart had elicited testimony suggesting that the incident at issue was the only weld crack of which he was aware. The email itself was not admitted, and Chart had an opportunity to address the questioning.

The court further upheld excluding evidence of low liquid-nitrogen readings from 2013 and 2014 because Chart had not shown that the witnesses’ testimony created a false impression requiring rebuttal, and the evidence was too remote and potentially distracting. The court found no improper state-of-mind testimony from plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Kasbekar and stated that Chart could cross-examine him about his opinions and knowledge.

The court rejected Chart’s attorney-misconduct arguments. It found that comments about Chart witnesses appearing by video deposition did not warrant a new trial, particularly because Chart often did not object and the comments were tangential to the main issues. The court also found that a statement by plaintiffs’ counsel about Dr. Miller conducting no tests, although improper because he had conducted an excluded test, did not prejudice Chart. The court had sustained objections and given corrective instructions, and the jury had been told that lawyers’ arguments were not evidence.

The court declined to disturb the jury’s allocation of 90% of the fault to Chart and 10% to Pacific Fertility Center. Chart had not properly supported its challenge in its opening motion, and the court stated that the evidence supported the allocation. Finally, the court rejected Chart’s argument that the noneconomic damages were excessive. The plaintiffs had testified about their trauma and emotional distress, and the different awards for each plaintiff indicated that the jury had considered the evidence individually.

Disposition

Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley denied Chart’s motion for a new trial and denied Chart’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. The order states that it disposed of Docket Nos. 936 and 937.