Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Gastrom v. 3M Co.

Gastrom v. 3M Co.

United States District Court for the Central District of California

December 1, 2020, Decided; December 1, 2020, Filed

2:20-cv-10464-SVW

Opinion

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, Dkt. 13, the Court hereby REMANDS this action to Los Angeles Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226559 *

Gastrom v 3M Company et al.

Counsel:  [*1] For Polly Gastrom, individually and as representative of the estate of Robert Hayden Baer, Suzzane Nesbit, Plaintiffs: H W Trey Jones, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Offices of HW Jones PC, Los Angeles, CA.

For Vigor Industrial LLC, individually as successor-in-interest to Todd Shipyards Corporation, Defendant: George D Yaron, LEAD ATTORNEY, Demian David Steele, Yaron and Associates, Oakland, CA.

For Borgwarner Morse Tec LLC, Erroneously Sued As Morse Tec LLC fka Borgwarner Morse Tec LLC, Defendant: Karen Luong, Kelvin Timothy Wyles, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Dentons US LLP, Los Angeles, CA.

For BWDAC, Inc., individually and as successor Borg-Warner Corporation, Union Carbide Corporation, Defendants: Susan W Gilefsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, Farah Sohaili Nicol, Ryan S Landis, Stephen M Nichols, Polsinelli LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Stephanie L Bowlby, Polsnielli LLP, Los Angeles, CA.

For Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to Davis Engineering Company doing business as Aqua-Chem, Inc., doing business as Cleaver-Brooks Division, Defendant: Gary D Sharp, Melanie L Ameele, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Neusha Etemad, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Los Angeles, CA.

For Cooper Industries, Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest [*2]  to The Crouse-Hinds Company, Defendant: Bradley P Kaplan, DeHay and Elliston, Walnut Creek, CA.

For Ericsson, Inc., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Anaconda Wire and Cable, Defendant: Bruce G Chusid, Selman Breitman LLP, Los Angeles, CA.

For General Cable Industries, Inc., Defendant: James C Parker, Thomas W Remillard, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Edward R. Hugo, Hugo Parker LLP, San Francisco, CA.

For Honeywell International Inc., as successor-in-interest to the Bendix Corporation formerly known as Allied Signal, Inc., Defendant: Colleen Elizabeth Baime, Katherine C Elford, LEAD ATTORNEYS, McDermott Will and Emery LLP, Los Angeles, CA.

For IMO Industries, Inc., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Delaval Turbine, Inc., Defendant: Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader Berkon Colao & Silverstein LLP, Los Angeles, CA.

For Plastic Engineering Company, doing business as Plenco, Defendant: Peter B Langbord, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Los Angeles, CA.

For Pneumo Abex, L.L.C., individually and as successor-in-interest to Pneumo Abex Corporation and Abex Corporation, Defendant: Heather L Weakley, Robert Dirk Bernhardt, Salin Ebrahamian, LEAD ATTORNEYS, DeHay and Elliston LLP, Los Angeles, [*3]  CA.

For Rogers Corporation, Defendant: Peter K Renstrom, LEAD ATTORNEY, Todd M Thacker, WFBM LLP, San Francisco, CA.

For Schneider Electric USA Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to Square D Company, Defendant: D Scott Shaffer, LEAD ATTORNEY, Fox Rothschild LLP, San Francisco, CA.

Judges: STEPHEN V. WILSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Opinion by: STEPHEN V. WILSON