Mesothelioma Case to Be Heard in State Court, Despite Asbestos Company’s Arguments

Every cancer death is tragic, but when people die from malignant mesothelioma the death is particularly upsetting. The rare and deadly form of cancer is known to be caused by exposure to asbestos, and though companies had the opportunity to warn of its dangers or take it out of the stream of commerce, they failed to do so. This has resulted in countless mesothelioma deaths, and then to lawsuits being filed by victims and their families seeking compensation. A recent case exemplifies how hard these companies will fight against being held responsible, going so far as to accuse a victim of committing fraud.

Mesothelioma Victim Accused of Fraudulent Joinder

The mesothelioma claim was filed by John Edward Rathbun and his wife, Gwendolyn. They filed their suit in California state court against multiple defendants, including Chattem, the manufacturer of Gold Bond talcum powder, and two consumer retail stores – Safeway, Inc. and Lucky Stores, Inc. — in California, where they lived and where they purchased the asbestos-contaminated product. In response to the claim, the defendants removed the case to federal court. They did this because they are located outside of California, but the Rathbuns filed to have the case returned (or remanded) to state court because the two retail defendants were located in their state.

The defendants opposed having the mesothelioma lawsuit remanded to state court, and accused the Rathbuns of including Safeway and Lucky fraudulently, for the sole purpose of voiding a diversity claim. A diversity claim points out that plaintiffs and defendants are located in different states with different laws, and would allow the suit to be heard in federal court, where juries tend to be less generous with victim compensation.

Judges Reject Asbestos Companies’ Argument Against Mesothelioma Victim

While the judges agreed that there were some areas of the mesothelioma victim’s claims that were ambiguous and needed to be amended, they rejected the asbestos companies’ motion to stop the case from being remanded to state court. They rejected the accusation of fraud, and pointed out that law requires that if there is any chance that the case against the two California-based defendants could be won then there was a basis for the claim to remain in the state court.