Daily Journal Staff Writer
A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge is expected this week to rule on whether Iranian law applies to a case in which an oil refinery worker was exposed to asbestos while working in the country.
Plaintiff Farid Malek alleges his malignant mesothelioma is the result of asbestos exposure from 1951 to 1979 when he worked at an oil refinery in Abadan, Iran, according to the complaint. Farid Malek et al v. Blackmer Pump Co. et al., BC580695 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed May 7, 2015)
After the Iranian revolution, Malek emigrated to the United States and settled in California, where he developed the asbestos-related illness.
Malek's case was given priority and is set to begin trial on Dec. 7.
D. Mark Jackson, partner at Bassi Edlin Huie & Blum LLP in San Francisco, is counsel for defendant Brand Insulations Inc., an American company alleged to have been a subcontractor at the Abadan oil refinery during the time in question.
Jackson moved in September to apply Iranian law to the case on the basis that the exposure and business-related activity took place in Iran, and that the plaintiff was an Iranian national at the time.
"It's hard to imagine that if you're a company doing business in Iran or some place halfway around the globe that some day 40 years later you'd be subjected to California law," Jackson said. "The expectation is that wherever you go, the applicable law is going to be the law of where you are."
Plaintiffs countered the motion on various fronts, arguing that Iranian law is rooted in Islamic, or Sharia, law, and that applying such statutes in California would be entangling or endorsing the religion.
"None of the parties in this case have any attorneys that are licensed to practice in Iran or have ever done so, and they want to cherry pick and interpret those Iranian laws they believe would be more beneficial to their case," said Benno Ashrafi, plaintiff's attorney and managing attorney of mesothelioma and asbestos litigation at Weitz & Luxenberg PC. "Four other cases with plaintiffs who worked at the same oil refinery all had defense motions to apply Iranian law, and all were denied because there is absolutely no basis to apply it to a case where you have American citizens and American companies."
According to the defense, the relevant Iranian laws are secular and differ substantially from California law in four ways: Iran's standard of care is based on the custom and practice, rather than the reasonable person's standard; Iran does not recognize joint liability or punitive damages, which are being sought in this case, and finally, economic damages in Iran are capped at around $48,000, depending on the exchange rate.
While plaintiffs were unwilling to place a dollar value on this case, Afsani said the medical expenses alone ran into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. A 2008 asbestos case involving a plaintiff exposed at the same Abadan refinery netted a $14.8 million jury verdict. Shahabi v. A.W. Chesterton, et. al., BC379085 (L.A. Sup. Ct, filed Oct. 12, 2007)
The defense relied upon the state Supreme Court opinion In September the 2nd District Court of Appeal summarily denied a writ of mandate in a similar case, asking to reconsider the application of Iranian law after a trial court denied the motion. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Emilie H. Elias explained in her denial of the motion, "Iran is run by mullahs and lacks an independent judiciary and due process [and] through utilization of Islamic law, fails to afford a remedy." Samad Sarooie et al. v Asbestos Corp. Ltd. et al., BC529503 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Aug. 20, 2014) america_hernandez@dailyjournal.com
America Hernandez
america_hernandez@dailyjournal.com
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com