Sarjeant v. City of Long Beach

Background

James Sarjeant alleged two types of asbestos exposure attributable to Honeywell: working with Bendix-brand asbestos-containing automotive brakes and working on the RMS Queen Mary near Honeywell contractors who allegedly disturbed asbestos-containing ship parts. Honeywell moved to dismiss the first cause of action for products liability, the second cause of action for negligence, and the fifth cause of action for fraud.

Products Liability and Negligence

The court denied Honeywell’s motion to dismiss the products-liability claims. Sarjeant’s allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage to plausibly allege that Honeywell caused his asbestos exposure. The court noted that Sarjeant would ultimately have to prove that he was exposed to Honeywell brakes and Honeywell contractors, but held that his allegations could proceed for now.

The court also rejected dismissal of the negligence claims based on inadequate allegations of causation. However, it partially granted Honeywell’s motion concerning other negligence theories. Claims for negligent management of property, negligent failure to warn about unsafe concealed conditions, and negligent exercise of retained control over safety conditions were dismissed because Sarjeant did not allege that Honeywell controlled property on which he was injured. The court also dismissed the negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim because the complaint did not allege that Honeywell’s employees were unfit for their work or that Honeywell should have known about any such unfitness.

Fraud-Based Claims

The court granted Honeywell’s motion to dismiss the fraud-based claims. It held that Sarjeant did not allege that he saw or relied on a misrepresentation by Honeywell, and it found the two conspiracy claims insufficiently alleged. The court also dismissed the fraudulent-concealment theory. Under the California law principles discussed in the opinion, that claim required a transactional relationship or another basis for a duty to disclose. Sarjeant alleged only that he was near Honeywell contractors and brakes. His allegations that Honeywell advertised its brakes as safe also did not adequately connect the advertising to him, his exposure period, or decisions he would have made differently had he known the alleged full truth. The court held that the federal rule requiring fraud to be pleaded with particularity applied.

Disposition

Honeywell’s motion to dismiss the first cause of action for products liability was denied. The motion to dismiss the second cause of action for negligence was partially granted and partially denied. The motion to dismiss the fifth cause of action for fraud was granted. The dismissals were with leave to amend, and an amended complaint was due within 21 days. The court also stated that Sarjeant could later seek leave to amend if discovery on the surviving claims provided a good-faith basis to reassert dismissed claims. Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order.