Deutsch v. Turner Corp., No. 00-56673.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Reinhardt |
| Citation | 324 F.3d 692 |
| Parties | |
| Docket Number | No. 01-17211.,No. 01-17210.,No. 01-17260.,No. 01-17230.,No. 01-17123.,No. 01-17265.,No. 01-17172.,No. 01-17197.,No. 01-17251.,No. 01-17195.,No. 00-56673.,No. 01-17207.,No. 01-17157.,No. 01-17124.,No. 01-17189.,No. 01-17499.,No. 01-17252.,No. 01-17204.,No. 01-17185.,No. 01-17116.,No. 01-17201.,No. 01-17243.,No. 01-17160.,No. 01-17155.,No. 01-17134.,No. 01-17203.,No. 01-17177.,No. 01-17115.,No. 01-17176. |
| Decision Date | 21 January 2003 |
v.
TURNER CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation with corporate regional headquarters located in California; Kitchell Corporation USA, an Arizona Corporation authorized to do business in California; Hochtief AG, a German Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Woodrow M. Hutchison, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Mitsubishi Materials Corporation; Mitsubishi Materials USA, a business association purporting to be a California corporation; Mitsubishi Corporation, a Japanese business association; Mitsubishi International Corporation, a business association purporting to be a New York corporation; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., a Japanese business association; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., a business association purporting to be a Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Lester I. Tenny, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Mitsui & Co. Ltd., a Japanese business association; Mitsui & Co (USA), Inc, a business association purporting to be a New York Corporation; Mitsui Mining Co Ltd, a Japanese business
Page 693
Shirley M. Rubenstein; Julia E. Stevenson; Glen Leroy, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha, Ltd; Ishihara Corporation, a California corporation; ISK Americas, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Raymond Heimbuch; Vivian O. Johnson; William R. Lowe; Sam P. Buse; Alfred Berest; Edwin F. Lindros; Michael Bibin; J.S. Gray; Karl William Holt; Norman R. Matthews; Darrel D. Stark; Carmel Zipeto, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha, Ltd, a Japanese business association; Ishihara Corporation; ISK Americas, Inc., a business association purporting to be a Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Melody Solis, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Nippon Steel Corporation, a Japanese business association; Nippon Steel Trading Co., Ltd., a Japanese business association; Nippon Steel USA Inc, a business association purporting to be a New York corporation; Nippon Steel Trading America, Defendants-Appellees.
Harry Corre, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Mitsui & Co. Ltd; Mitsui & Company (USA), Inc.; Mitsui Mining USA Inc; Mitsui Mining Co., Ltd., Defendants-Appellees.
Garth G. Dunn, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Nippon Steel Corporation, a Japanese business association; Nippon Steel USA, a business association purporting to be a New York Corp., Defendants-Appellees, and
Japan Iron & Steel, a Japanese business association; Yawata Iron & Steel, a Japanese business association; Fuji Iron & Steel, a Japanese business association; Mitsubishi Corporation, a Japanese business association; Mitsubishi Shoji; Sumitomo Corp.; Sumitomo Commercial Company, a Japanese business association, Defendants.
James O. King, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Nippon Steel Corp; Nippon Steel USA, Defendants-Appellees.
Perfecto Llanza, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Alberto Saldejeno; Acelopio Galedo; Generoso Jacob; Ernesto Santo Domingo; Imelda Santo Domingo, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Mitsui & Co (USA), Inc, a business association; Mitsui Mining Co., Ltd., a Japanese business association; Mitsubishi Corporation; Nippon Steel Corp, a Japanese business association; Nippon Steel USA Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Page 694
v.
Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha, Ltd, a Japanese business association; Ishihara Corporation (USA); Taiheiyo Cement, a Japanese business association; Onoda USA; Kreha Corporation of America, Inc.; Mitsui & Co. (USA); Showa Denko America, Inc.; Mitsui Mining USA Inc; Furukawa Electric North America, Inc.; Sumitomo Heavy Industries (USA); Nippon Steel USA Inc.; Mitsubishi International Corporation; Mitsubishi Materials USA Corporation; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Ernesto Santo Domingo, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated; Imelda Santo Domingo, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha, Ltd, a Japanese corporation; Ishihara Corporation U.S.A., California corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Manuel A. Eneriz; Dexter Eneriz, Executor of the Estate of Manuel A. Eneriz, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Mitsui & Company Ltd.; Mitsui & Company (USA), Inc.; Mitsui Mining Company, Ltd.; Mitsui Mining USA Inc, Defendants-Appellees.
Ralph Levenberg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Nippon Sharyo Ltd.; Nippon Sharyo USA., Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Harold W. Poole; Ernest Loy; Francis W. Agnes; Robert C. Clark; Clarence S. Kellogg, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Nippon Steel Corp, a Japanese business association; Nippon Steel Trading Co., Ltd., a business association purporting to be a New York corporation; Nippon Steel Trading America, a business association purporting to be a California corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Suk Yoon Kim, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd.; IHI Inc.; Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd.; Sumitomo Heavy Industries (USA) Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Zhenhuan Ma, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Kajima Corporation; Kajima Construction Services, Inc.; Kajima Development Corporation; Kajima Engineering and Construction, Inc.; Kajima International, Inc.; Kajima U.S.A., Inc, Defendants-Appellees.
Sa Son Sin, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Mitsui & Co, Ltd.; Mitsui & Co. (USA); Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.; Paceco Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Page 695
v.
Mitsui & Co. Ltd., a Japanese business association; Mitsui Bussan Kaisha; Mitsui & Co (USA), Inc; Mitsubishi Corporation; Mitsubishi International Corporation, a business corporation; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., a Japanese business association; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America Inc., a business association; Mitsubishi Materials Corporation, a Japanese association; Mitsubishi Materials USA Corporation, a business association; Sumitomo Corp., a Japanese business association; Sumitomo Corp. of America, a business association; Kureha Corporation of America, a business association; Furukawa Electric North America, Inc., a business association; Taiheiyo Cement, a Japanese business association; Onoda USA Inc., a business association; Showa Denko K K, a Japanese business association, Defendants-Appellees.
Shang Ting Sung, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Mitsui & Co, Ltd.; Mitsui & Co. (USA); Mitsubishi Corporation; Mitsubishi International Corporation; Mitsui Mining Co., Ltd.; Mitsui Mining USA Inc, Defendants-Appellees.
Raymond Wheeler; Alec Charles Murphy; William Schmitt; Hendrick Zeeman; Tammerus Willem Carter Visscher; David Clarke; Willem Hendrik De Haan, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Mitsui & Co. Ltd, a Japanese business association; Mitsui & Company (USA), Inc., a business association; Mitsui Mining Company, Ltd., a Japanese business association; Mitsui Mining USA Inc; Nippon Steel USA; Mitsubishi Corporation, Mitsubishi International Corp.; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc.; Mitsubishi Materials USA Corporation; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Defendants-Appellees.
Jae Sik Choe, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Nippon Steel Corporation; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Defendants-Appellees.
Frank A. Mente; Neville J. Booker, individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Mitsui & Co. Ltd, a Japanese association, aka/Mitsui Bussan Kaisha; Mitsui Mining Company, Ltd., a Japanese business association; Mitsui & Company (USA), Inc., a business association; Nippon Steel Corporation, a Japanese corporation; Nippon Steel USA Inc., a business association; Mitsubishi Corporation, a Japanese business association; Mitsubishi Materials USA Corporation; Mitsubishi Materials Corporation, a Japanese business association; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., a Japanese business association; Mitsubishi International Corporation, a business corporation, Defendants, and
Mitsui Mining USA Inc, a business association; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America Inc., a business association, Defendants-Appellees.
Page 696
v.
Mitsubishi Corporation, a corporation; Mitsubishi Corporation, a corporation; Mitsui & Co., Ltd., a corporation; Mitsui Mining Company, Ltd., a corporation; Mitsui & Company (USA), Inc., a corporation; Mitsui Mining USA Inc, a corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Do Geun Oh; Eung Chang Lee; Yong Hae Lee, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Mitsui & Co., Ltd, a Japanese business association; Mitsui & Co. (USA), a business association; Mitsubishi Corporation, a Japanese business association; Mitsubishi Corporation, a business association; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., a Japanese business association; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., a business association; Mitsubishi Materials Corporation, a Japanese business association; Mitsubishi Materials USA Corporation, a business association; Nippon Steel Corp, a Japanese business association; Nippon Steel USA, a business association; Showa Denko America, Inc., a business association; Showa Kogyo, a Japanese business association, Defendants-Appellees.
Gloria Tyler Alfano; Madeline
To continue reading
Request your trial
113 cases
-
Overton v. Uber Techs., Inc., Case No. 18-cv-02166-EMC
...violating the commerce clause and 14th Amendment, but the claims would not be viable so amendment is futile. See Deutsch v. Turner Corp., 324 F.3d 692, 718 (9th Cir. 2003) (district court does not abuse discretion when dismissing a claim without leave to amend where doing so would be futile......
-
In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation., MDL Docket No. 06-1791 VRW.
...effect in foreign countries' and * * * great potential for disruption * * *."). The Ninth Circuit's decision in Deutsch v. Turner Corp., 324 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2003), sheds light on the present issues. Deutsch affirmed this court's decision in In re World War II Era Japanese Forced Labor Li......
-
Overton v. Uber Techs., Inc., Case No. 18-cv-02166-EMC
...violating the commerce clause and 14th Amendment, but the claims would not be viable so amendment is futile. See Deutsch v. Turner Corp. , 324 F.3d 692, 718 (9th Cir. 2003) (district court does not abuse discretion when dismissing a claim without leave to amend where doing so would be futil......
-
Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co. v. Everest Ins. Co., Case No. CV 20-01652-AB (GJSx)
...of limitations from bringing its equitable contribution claim, that claim is DISMISSED with prejudice . See Deutsch v. Turner Corp. , 324 F.3d 692, 718 n.20 (9th Cir. 2003) (denying leave to amend where amendment would be futile because the statute of limitations had run).ii. Claim 4: Breac......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
Statutes of Limitations
...on the exercise of foreign affairs power by the states. [ Deutsch v. Turner Corp. , 317 F3d 1005, 1020-1027 (9th Cir 2003), aff’d en banc 324 F3d 692 (9th Cir 2003); Mitsubishi Materials v. Superior Court, 113 CA4th 55, 6 CR3d 159 (2003).] §3:764 Actions by Certain Braceros Actions by brace......
-
Congress and the reconstruction of foreign affairs federalism.
...of a treaty or federal statute, a state may violate the constitution by 'establishing] its own foreign policy.'" Deutsch v. Turner Corp., 324 F.3d 692, 709 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added) (quoting Zschernig, 389 U.S. at (90.) Zschernig, 389 U.S. at 430-31. (91.) Id. at 441. (92.) Ramsey, s......