Speck v. 3M Company
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-05845
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Speck v. 3M Company, Judge Donato granted defendants’ dismissal motions in part, allowing some negligence claims but dismissing fraud claims with leave to amend.
Representatives of John C. Speck’s estate, General Dynamics Corporation, and Bath Iron Works Corporation.
What happened
In Speck v. 3M Company, representatives of John C. Speck’s estate sued General Dynamics Corporation and Bath Iron Works Corporation over alleged asbestos exposure and related claims. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the remaining claims in the second amended complaint.
The court held that maritime law applies to the negligence claim. The general negligence claim may proceed, but product-related negligence claims may proceed only for equipment and components aboard ships and submarines—not the vessels themselves. The court dismissed the fraud and conspiracy-to-defraud claims because the complaint did not specifically explain each defendant’s role, but allowed plaintiffs to amend those claims.
Judge Donato granted the motions to dismiss in part and set February 24, 2022, as the deadline for a third amended complaint. The court warned that failing to meet the deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b).
The detailed version
- Speck v. 3M Company · No. 3:20-cv-05845
- James Donato
- Feb. 3, 2022
Background
General Dynamics Corporation and Bath Iron Works Corporation moved to dismiss the remaining claims in the second amended complaint brought by representatives of the estate of John C. Speck. The complaint alleged that Speck was exposed to asbestos at Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo, California. The court stated that the parties’ familiarity with the record was assumed. Requests for judicial notice were terminated and were not considered.
Negligence claims
The court ruled that maritime law governs the negligence claim. It allowed the general negligence claim to go forward. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the claim was merely a rewritten strict-product-liability claim, explaining that maritime product-liability claims may be based on negligence or strict liability.
The negligent product-liability claims may proceed only as to products other than the naval ships and submarines themselves. The complaint identified equipment and components such as switch gear, circuit breakers, panel boards, motor starters, motor controllers, asbestos arc chutes, ebony board, phenolic materials, paper, wire and cable, pumps, valves, and turbines. The court ruled that the ships and submarines constructed by the defendants are not themselves products under maritime law, although systems and components within those vessels may support product-liability claims.
Fraud and conspiracy claims
The court dismissed the fraud and conspiracy-to-defraud claims because they did not meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s requirement that fraud be pleaded with particularity. The complaint did not provide specific allegations describing General Dynamics’ and Bath Iron Works’ roles in the alleged fraudulent scheme, instead contrasting with its more specific allegations concerning Honeywell and Borg Warner.
The dismissal was with leave to amend. Plaintiffs could file a third amended complaint consistent with the order by February 24, 2022. The court stated that failure to meet that deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b). The court also advised that combining multiple counts under one cause of action was inconsistent with the requirement for a short and plain statement of the claim and with the rule requiring separately numbered paragraphs when practicable.
Disposition
The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss in part. The general negligence claim and specified product-related negligence claims could proceed, while the fraud and conspiracy-to-defraud claims were dismissed with leave to amend.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.