3M Required to Pay Mesothelioma Victim’s Court Fees
Mesothelioma lawsuits can take years to pursue, and often present a rollercoaster of wins, losses, and draws. While victims are simply seeking justice, asbestos companies do everything in their power to stall and stand in the way in order to keep from having to pay. In a recent example, the legal action that 3M Company’s took was considered so unreasonable by the judge hearing the case that he ordered the company to pay the plaintiffs’ legal fees.
3M Attempts to Have Mesothelioma Claim Removed to Federal Court
Different courts have different reputations when it comes to their decisions in mesothelioma cases. Juries sitting on state courts tend to be more sympathetic to the plight of victims, and so asbestos companies work hard to have cases removed to federal court, but removal is only available under a few circumstances. The most common reason for removal is diversity, which refers to when none of the named defendants are located in the same state as the victim.
When Gary Haeck was diagnosed with mesothelioma, he and his wife Elizabeth filed their lawsuit in California state court, naming 3M Company and several others as defendants. They settled with four of the defendants and a fifth filed a successful petition for summary judgment that resulted in the case against them being dismissed. This left no California defendants and 3M filed to have the case removed to federal court. The Haecks objected. They asked for the case to be remanded back to state court and for compensation for the costs of litigating an issue that an earlier Ninth Circuit decision had made clear, namely that because the fifth California defendant was removed from their claim involuntarily, the case should remain where it was filed.
3M’s Legal Position in Mesothelioma Case Went Against Precedent
In hearing the case, District Judge Edward Chen agreed with the mesothelioma victim, noting that the company’s removal to federal court had been without “an objectively reasonable basis” and ordering them to pay the couple’s attorney fees up to $5,000. The judge’s ruling particularly noted 3M’s acknowledgment of the conflict between their plea and the Ninth Circuit’s earlier decision, which he termed an “invitation to eschew a well-settled legal rule.”
Paquete de compensación financiera GRATUITO
- Información sobre despachos de abogados que recuperarán su INDEMNIZACIÓN MÁS ALTA
- Aprenda cómo cobrar en 90 días
- Solicite su parte de $30 mil millones en fondos fiduciarios
