Selman Obtains Summary Judgment Victory in Alameda on behalf of Defendant in Heavily Contested Asbestos Lawsuit

On June 8, 2017, Judge Brad Seligman of the Alameda County Superior Court reversed his tentative ruling and granted Selman Breitman's motion for summary judgment on behalf of the firm's client, a plumbing supplies wholesaler.  In this asbestos related lawsuit, plaintiffs Frank & Cynthia Hart sought millions in compensation after Frank Hart developed mesothelioma, a cancer associated with asbestos exposure.  The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant provided Frank Hart's employer with asbestos-containing cement pipe and produced a coworker witness to substantiate the exposure claim.  In his initial ruling, Judge Seligman held that the coworker witness provided sufficient testimony to create a triable issue of fact and tentatively denied Selman's motion.  To further bolster their position before the summary judgment hearing, plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions against Selman for having brought the motion in light of the coworker testimony.  Undaunted, Selman refused to withdraw its motion, argued that the coworker testimony was "inherently contradictory" and asked the court to disregard the coworker testimony in its entirety.  After providing additional briefing to the Court that highlighted appellate case law that authorized the Court to disregard inherently contradictory testimony, the Court reversed its tentative order and granted Selman's motion for summary judgment.

Michael Sandgren and Holly Beal of Selman represented the prevailing defendant.

Maune, Raichle, Hartley, French & Mudd LLC represented plaintiffs.


Selman Breitman provides this information for educational purposes. Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case. This information should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship.