United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ERIC KLOPMAN-BAERSELMAN, as Personal Representative for the Estate of RUDIE KLOPMAN-BAERSELMAN, deceased, Plaintiff,
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR
DEFENDANT INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY
J. BRYAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration of Order Granting Summary Judgment for
Defendant Ingersoll-Rand Company (“Motion for
Reconsideration”). Dkt. 466. The Court is familiar with
the record herein and has reviewed the motion and documents
filed in support of and in opposition thereto, and it is
reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration should be denied.
October 15, 2019, the Court granted Defendant Ingersoll-Rand
Company's (“I-R”) Motion for Summary Judgment
and dismissed I-R from the case. Dkt. 428
(“Order”). The Court held, in part, that: (1)
with respect to Decedent's alleged Dutch Merchant Marine
asbestos exposure, Plaintiff had not offered evidence showing
that I-R or products that it sold or supplied caused
Decedent's injuries and death; and (2) Plaintiff failed
to sufficiently present its claim related to asbestos
exposure at Tektronix because the operative complaint lacked
necessary factual allegations. Dkt. 428.
October 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for
Reconsideration. Plaintiff argues that the Court's Order
(Dkt. 428) is incorrect and unfair. Plaintiff argues that he
should have been allowed to amend the operative complaint to
“closely conform to the evidence of [Decedent's]
thirty-year career at Tektronix before [summary judgment was]
decided.” Dkt. 466, at 4. Plaintiff further provides
Upon granting of reconsideration, and the recalling of this
Court's order granting summary judgment, plaintiff would
thereafter immediately file his motion for leave to amend,
along with a proposed amended complaint. If the motion for
leave to amend is then granted, this court could properly
consider plaintiff's detailed evidence regarding
decedent's exposures at Tektronix on its merits when
ruling on Ingersoll-Rand's motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff respectfully submits it would be reversible error
to enter summary judgment in Ingersoll-Rand's favor
without considering the evidence of decedent's
occupational exposures at Tektronix.
Dkt. 466, at 4-5.
Court granted leave to the parties to file responsive
briefing to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt.
filed a response in opposition to the Motion for
Reconsideration. Dkt. 495. I-R argues that Plaintiff's
Motion for Reconsideration cites no new facts or legal
authority and identifies no manifest error in the Order. I-R
contends that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration
should be denied for three reasons: (1) the Order was
correct; (2) at any time during the past two years of
litigation, Plaintiff could have moved for leave to amend the
operative complaint to include allegations of exposure from
working at Tektronix, but Plaintiff chose not to; and (3)
leave to amend the complaint at this last stage would be
improper. Dkt. 495. I-R further contends, in part, that leave
to amend would be prejudicial because discovery is closed and
I-R has stopped its trial preparations. Dkt. 495, at 9-11.
filed a reply in support of the Motion for Reconsideration.
in the record, in Plaintiff's Reply in Support of
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant
Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation's Defenses to
Plaintiff's Claims, ...