HOME STORY OF OUR FIRM SEARCH
ASBESTOS DRUGS POLLUTANTS ACCIDENTS MALPRACTICE
English En Français

FREE LEGAL REVIEW

First Name
Last Name
Home Phone
Work Phone
City and State
Email
Were you diagnosed with Asbestosis? Yes
No
Were you diagnosed with lung cancer? Yes
No
Were you diagnosed with Mesothelioma? yes
no
What is your date of diagnosis?
Additional Comments
Best time to call?

Brumley vs. FDCC California, Inc. Asbestos Case Footnotes

Read the footnotes in the appellate decision in Brumley, et. al vs. FDCC California, Inc. In this decedent asbestos cancer case, the plaintiffs appeal the lower court’s decision on the wrongful death claim filed on behalf of the widow and children and the widow’s loss of consortium.

1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

2 Section 583.210 now states more succinctly, “The summons and complaint shall be served upon a defendant within three years after the action is commenced against the defendant.” Section 583.250, subdivision (a)(2) prescribes dismissal as the remedy for a violation.

3 In applying the section 583 exception for impracticability, General Motors focused solely on the wrongful death action. Plaintiffs here made no separate attempt to demonstrate that it would have been impractical to bring their wrongful death and loss of consortium claims to trial within the time allotted the survivorship claims, since, unlike the situation in General Motors, the former claims were not the subject of a separate action.

4 General Motors did not address dismissal of the wrongful death claims. Because these claims were contained in a separate action, and were therefore governed by a different five-year period than the survivorship claims, dismissal of the wrongful death claims was neither raised nor considered as a possibility.

5 We note that these cases are sufficiently new that neither was available to the trial court when it ruled that the new causes of action did relate back to Brumley’s original claims.

6 Defendants also cite Edwards v. Superior Court (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 172, but in that case the court itself noted, “Application of the relate-back doctrine is unnecessary under the circumstances here.” (Id. at p. 181.) It provides no guidance.

If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with an asbestos illness like mesothelioma, lung cancer or asbestosis, complete the form on this page to get a FREE and prompt review of your case by a leading asbestos attorney. Weitz & Luxenberg is a leading mesothelioma law firm with a substantial history of success in asbestos exposure cases.

Mesothelioma Mesothelioma Home Page
head Mesothelioma: An Overview
kleio The Clock Is Ticking
asbestos Our Toughest Cases
head Diagnosis
treatment Symptoms, Stages, Treatment
kleio Latest News
New York Numbers
Asbestos


IN THIS SECTION
Asbestos: San Diego
Asbestos: Brumley, Quiroz
Lamont: Brumley Asbestos Case
Disposition: Brumley Asbestos Case
Counsel: Brumley asbestos case
Brumley California asbestos decision


RETURN BACK TO
Mesothelioma
Asbestos
Asbestos Lawsuit
Asbestos Litigation
Books and other resources
Brumley asbestos case

For legal help anywhere in the U.S. call:

1 - 800 - 476 - 6070

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

see also:

Asbestos: San Diego NY lawyers: San Diego G&E asbestos case in Brumley appellate decision
Free case review: San Diego case cited in Brumley asbestos decision

Lamont: Brumley Asbestos Case Lamont v. Wolfe case discussed in Brumley asbestos decision
Discussion of Lamont v. Wolfe in Brumley asbestos case

Procedural issues: Brumley asbestos case Procedural delays in asbestos case of Brumley vs. FDCC California
Read about the procedural delays of the Brumley vs. FDCC asbestos case