This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury
Toxic Exposure
Wrongful Death

Regina Lazo, Alex Lazo, Marc Lazo v. Mobil Oil Refining Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp.

Published: Jun. 21, 2014 | Result Date: May 30, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:14-cv-01072-ABC-JC Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Marc Y. Lazo
(K&L Law Group)


Defendant

Lawrence P. Riff
(Los Angeles County Superior Court)

Colleen M. O'Brien

Jason Levin
(Steptoe & Johnson LLP)


Facts

Regina Lazo and others sued Mobil Oil Refining Corp. for wrongful death.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs argued that Youssef Lazo, a family member, was exposed to toxic chemicals during his employment with Mobil. As a result, Youssef developed acute myeloid leukemia, a degenerative disease that culminated in his death.

Plaintiffs asserted claims for wrongful death, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, and failure to warn. After their initial claims were dismissed, they filed an amended complaint, adding an additional claim for fraudulent concealment.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Mobil removed the case from state court, defeated a motion to remand, and moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the suit arguing that the claims were barred because California workers' compensation law provided an exclusive remedy and plaintiffs' allegations fit no exception. After plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, Mobil filed another motion to dismiss for lack of plausibility, and argued that plaintiffs' amended complaint did not cure the defects that originally lead to dismissal.

Result

The court granted Mobil's motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs' allegations were more about alleged "knowledge of the risk" and not "actual knowledge of the injury," and therefore fell short of Rule 9's specificity requirements for pleading fraud.


#123246

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390