Sarjeant v. Foster Wheeler LLC

1

JAMES SARJEANT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FOSTER WHEELER LLC, et al., Defendants.

No. 24-cv-01216-VC

United States District Court, N.D. California

May 30, 2024

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART HONEYWELL'S MOTION TO DISMISS

RE: DKT. NO. 105

VINCE CHHABRIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Honeywell's motion to dismiss the first cause of action for products liability is denied. Honeywell's motion to dismiss the second cause of action for negligence is partially granted and partially denied. And Honeywell's motion to dismiss the fifth cause of action for fraud is granted. This ruling assumes the reader is familiar with the facts, the applicable legal standards, and the arguments made by both parties.

Sarjeant alleges two categories of asbestos exposure that he attributes to Honeywell. First, he alleges that he worked with “automotive friction products including Bendix-brand asbestos-containing brakes.” Second, he alleges that he did work on the RMS Queen Mary in Long Beach alongside contractors from Honeywell “who were disturbing ship parts that contained asbestos.” Honeywell argues that this is insufficiently specific to plead causation. But Sarjeant has done enough to plausibly allege that Honeywell caused his asbestos exposure. It is true that, for Sarjeant to recover, he will ultimately have to show that he was in fact exposed to Honeywell brakes and Honeywell contractors. But he has done enough at the pleadings stage. As failure to allege causation was the only basis asserted for dismissing the products liability claims those claims may move forward. And to the extent that Honeywell argues the negligence claims should be dismissed for failure to allege causation, that argument is rejected as well.

However some of the negligence claims asserted are insufficiently alleged. Negligent management of property, negligent failure to warn of unsafe concealed conditions, and negligent exercise of retained control over safety conditions all require the plaintiff to allege that the defendant had control over some property on which the plaintiff was injured. Sarjeant never alleges that regarding Honeywell. The closest he comes is with the allegations about the RMS Queen Mary. But he alleges only that Honeywell contractors were working alongside him on the ship and came into contact with him. Sarjeant does not allege that Honeywell exercised control over the ship, nor any portion of it, by virtue of this contracted work. Thus, those claims are dismissed.

Similarly the claim for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of employees is insufficiently alleged. The complaint contains no allegations about Honeywell's employees being unfit for the work they were performing on the RMS Queen Mary and no allegations that Honeywell should have known about such unfitness. If Sarjeant is referring to some other set of Honeywell employees whose incompetence he alleges caused his exposure and harm, then the complaint has not put Honeywell on notice of the conduct at issue. Thus, that claim is dismissed.

Finally, the fraud-based claims are not viable under California law and given Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement. There is no allegation that Sarjeant ever saw, let alone relied on, any misrepresentation made by Honeywell. The two conspiracy claims are also insufficiently alleged.

The fraudulent concealment claim presents the most difficult question. The parties agree that, under California law, a claim for fraudulent concealment requires that the plaintiff be in some sort of transactional relationship with the defendant, as there is no duty to disclose information owed to the general public. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Com v....