In re Silicone Gel Prod. Liability Litigation, CV 92-P-10000-S.
Citation | 887 F. Supp. 1455 |
Decision Date | 25 April 1995 |
Docket Number | No. CV 92-P-10000-S.,CV 92-P-10000-S. |
Parties | In re SILICONE GEL BREAST IMPLANTS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
Dow Chemical and Corning, Inc. Summary Judgment
On December 2, 1993, this court entered an interlocutory order granting summary judgment in favor of Dow Chemical and Corning, Inc. The court expressly declined to certify that decision as final under Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b). Now pending are plaintiffs' motions to vacate this Order, and motions by these defendants to certify the Order as final. For the reasons stated below, the court concludes that, with respect to Corning, Inc., the Order should be confirmed and certified as a final judgment. With respect to Dow Chemical, the Order should be vacated as to the direct liability claims.1
In its 1993 Order, the court, after reviewing the potential evidence then shown to be available, concluded that Dow Chemical and Corning could not be held liable under "corporate control" theories, that Dow Corning was not a joint venture or partnership, and that its parent corporations had no legal responsibility to plaintiffs with respect to controlling the operations of Dow Corning. Plaintiffs are not actively challenging those conclusions.
Rather, they assert that evidence obtained in 1994, supplementing that previously known, shows Dow Chemical engaged in conduct making it directly liable to plaintiffs under various tort theories. This new evidence, they say, demonstrates that Dow Chemical was significantly involved with Dow Corning's breast implants — indeed, in virtually all testing of silicone from the 1940s until the early 1970s upon which Dow Corning relied. They also contend that Dow Chemical was involved in the distribution of breast implants through its foreign subsidiary, Lepetit. Plaintiffs' theories include negligence, strict liability, concert of action, corporate conspiracy, aiding and abetting, fraud, and fraudulent concealment. Plaintiffs also contend that, although Corning did not research, design, produce, promote, test, or sell breast implants, the actions of Dow Chemical should be attributed to Corning, thereby making Corning liable to plaintiffs to the same extent as Dow Chemical.
The basic principles governing summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 were clarified in the trilogy of cases decided by the Supreme Court in 1986: Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Summary judgment is proper if, based on the admissible evidence that would be available and the applicable burdens of production and persuasion, a party would be entitled at trial to judgment as a matter of law because of material facts that either are not in substantial controversy or lack sufficient evidentiary support. Facts in genuine dispute are assumed to be favorable to the party against whom summary judgment would be entered.
In federal multidistrict proceedings, the transferee court applies the substantive law of the transferor courts. See, e.g., In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation, 745 F.Supp. 79, 81 (D.P.R. 1990) ( ). The transferor courts in diversity cases would be bound to apply the law of the forum state, including its choice of law rules. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941). See also MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION, SECOND § 33.23 n. 36 (1985).
This MDL proceeding involves diversity-jurisdiction cases filed in, or removed to, federal courts in 90 of the 94 districts, located in virtually every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. This court must therefore look to the laws of the several states to determine whether Dow Chemical and Corning should be granted summary judgment. When addressing direct liability issues under choice of law rules, this court may be obliged to apply the laws of many different states. Because of variations in applicable state law, summary judgment could be proper in some cases while not warranted in others.
In evaluating whether summary judgment should be granted in favor of Dow Chemical and Corning, the court treats the following facts as established, either because they are not in genuine dispute or because they are supported by evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hatfield v. Allenbrooke Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., LLC
...that a joint venture exists when no legal partnership or corporation has been formed); see also In re Silicone Gel Breast Implants Prod. Liab. Litig., 887 F. Supp. 1455, 1462 (N.D. Ala. 1995) ("[T]he fact that an entity is a corporation precludes a finding that it is a partnership or a join......
-
In re Norvergence, Inc.
...create an affirmative duty to inspect which could result in a tort liability to third persons." In re Silicone Gel Breast Implants Products Liab. Litig., 887 F.Supp. 1455, 1461(N.D.Ala.1995). As further stated in In re TMJ Implants Prods. Liab. Litig., entering a trademark licensing agreeme......
-
Lee v. Certainteed Corp.
...a corporation's liability to its shareholders or its parent corporation."); In re Silicone Gel Breast Implants Prods. Liab. Litig., 887 F.Supp. 1455, 1462 (N.D.Ala.1995) ("As a general proposition, the fact that an entity is a corporation precludes a finding that it is a partnership or a jo......
-
Dow Chemical Co. v. Mahlum
...Section 324A, however, includes no such requirement. As the federal district court concluded in In re Silicone Gel Products Liability Litigation, 887 F.Supp. 1455, 1460 (N.D.Ala.1995), Dow Chemical's reading of [section] 324A is too restrictive. That section provides that one who undertakes......
-
Toward a cooperative strategy for federal and state judges in mass tort litigation.
...OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORP., 1997 ANNUAL REPORT 67 (1998) (same). (79) See In re Silicone Gel Breast Implants Prods. Liab. Litig., 887 F. Supp. 1455 (N.D. Ala. (80) That special master was the author of this Article. (81) See Richard Birke & Craig R. Fox, Psychological Principles in ......