Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc.
Citation | 483 F.3d 383 |
Decision Date | 29 March 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 05-60388.,No. 05-60157.,05-60157.,05-60388. |
Parties | George PAZ; Barbara Faciane; Joe Lewis; Donald Jones; Ernest E. Bryan; Gregory Condiff; Karla Condiff; Odie Ladner; Henry Polk; Roy Tootle; William H. Stewart, Jr.; Margaret Ann Harris; Judith A. Lemon; Theresa Ladner; Yolanda Paz, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BRUSH ENGINEERED MATERIALS, INC.; Brush Wellman, Inc.; Wess-Del, Inc.; The Boeing Company, Defendants-Appellees. George Paz; et al., Plaintiffs, v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc.; et al., Defendants. Joseph P. Harris; Margaret Ann Harris; Terry R. Lemon; Judith A. Lemon; Marlin Moran; Rodney Sorapuru; Hermelinda Sorapuru; Alvin Pittman, Sr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc.; et al., Defendants, Wess-Del, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Ruben Honik (argued), Stephan Matanovic, Sherrie J. Cohen, Golomb & Honik, Philadelphia, PA, Robert C. Latham, Truly, Smith & Latham, Natchez, MS, Randall Alan Smith, Smith & Fawer, Stephen Michael Wiles, F. Gerald Maples, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Jeffery Ubersax (argued), Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, Paul H. Stephenson, III, Watkins & Eager, Jackson, MS, for Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. and Brush Wellman, Ins.
Timothy Dale Crawley (argued), Anderson, Crawley & Burke, Ridgeland, MS, for Wess-Del, Inc.
V.L. Woolston, Perkins Coie, Seattle, WA, Roy D. Campbell, III, Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, Jackson, MS, for Boeing Co.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi; Louis Guirola, Jr., Judge.
Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
For the reasons previously assigned in Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc., 445 F.3d 809 (5th Cir. 2006), we reversed the district court's dismissal of the appellants' claims against Wess-Del for lack of personal jurisdiction, but because the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' case under Rule 12(b)(6) raised an important question of state law which the Mississippi courts had not resolved, we certified a question to the Mississippi Supreme Court before finally disposing of this appeal. The question certified was "[w]hether the laws of Mississippi allow for a medical monitoring cause of action, whereby a plaintiff can recover medical monitoring costs for exposure to a harmful substance without proving current physical injuries from that exposure?"
The Mississippi Supreme Court has now answered that question. See Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc., 949 So.2d 1 (Miss. 2007). The court, inter alia, stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- United States v. Heredia-Holguin
-
Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials Inc.
...by the Mississippi Supreme Court's holding in Paz III, and accordingly affirmed the district court's decision. Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc., 483 F.3d 383 (5th Cir.2007). On September 6, 2005, Brush moved for summary judgment on the employees' remaining claims, arguing the employe......
- United States v. Ramirez-Gonzalez
- United States v. Heredia-Holguin