• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Page 1 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTIN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXASTYLER DIVISIONRobert L. Plummer and Nadine H. Plummer,by their agent, The Federal-Mogul Asbestos PersonalInjury Trust;:Plaintiffs, : NO. 6:09-cv-497v. :T&N Limited, f/k/a T&N plc, Turner & Newall PLC, andTurner & Newall Limited; and TAF InternationalLimited, f/k/a Turners Asbestos Fibres Limited and RawAsbestos Distributors Limited;:Defendants, :PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINTTO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:1. COMES NOW Robert L. Plummer and Nadine H. Plummer, hereinafter referredto as Plaintiffs, by their agent, the Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, complaining of T&N Limited, f/k/a T&N plc, Turner & Newall PLC, and Turner & Newall Limited; and TAFInternational Limited, f/k/a Turners Asbestos Fibres Limited and Raw Asbestos DistributorsLimited; hereinafter collectively referred to as Defendants, and files this original Complaint andwould respectfully show the Court as follows:I.2. Plaintiffs are citizens of Pennsylvania. Defendants are corporations organizedunder the laws of the United Kingdom. Defendants have done or are doing business in Texas.A complete diversity of citizenship exists between Plaintiffs and defendants as Plaintiffs arecitizens of Pennsylvania and Defendants are foreign citizens, and the amount in controversy
 
Page 2 of 9
exceeds a sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Defendants are doing business andhave in the past done business in the Eastern District of Texas. Thus, the Court has jurisdictionover Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texaspursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.3. The Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust (the “Trust”) is a Delawarestatutory trust, established pursuant to the terms of the Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization for Federal-Mogul Corporation and various of its affiliates (the “Plan”),confirmed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, effective as of December 27, 2007.4. Pursuant to the terms of the Plan, in exchange for a beneficial interest in the Trust,by way of the right to file a claim against the Trust, the Plaintiffs irrevocably appointed the Trustas their agent to assert their claims against the Defendants in this action, and assigned their rightto any proceeds from such claims to the Trust. The Trust, accordingly, is exercising such agencyin this action.5. Asbestos cases filed in Federal Court are currently classified as “tag-along” caseswhich will be governed by multi-district litigation pending in the United States District Court forthe Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Division. The court in Philadelphia at thistime controls jurisdiction of all asbestos cases being filed in the United States District Courts.6. Defendant T&N Limited (“T&N”) is a subsidiary of Federal-Mogul Corporationand is a foreign corporation formerly known as T&N plc, Turner & Newell PLC, and Turner &Newell Limited. Defendant T&N has not appointed a registered agent for service of process inthe State of Texas but may be served in accordance with the Hague Convention on the ServiceAbroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters.
 
Page 3 of 9
7. Defendant TAF International Limited (“TAF”) is a U.K. subsidiary of T&N and isa foreign corporation formerly known as Turners Asbestos Fibres Limited and Raw AsbestosDistributors Limited. Defendant TAF has not appointed a registered agent for service of processin the State of Texas but may be served in accordance with the Hague Convention on the ServiceAbroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters.II.8. Plaintiffs would show that, while Plaintiff, Robert L. Plummer, was workingwithin Texas, he was exposed to asbestos and asbestos fibers mined, manufactured, supplied andsold by said Defendants and placed into the stream of commerce by said Defendants which, as aresult, caused Plaintiff, Robert L. Plummer, to suffer severe and grievous injuries to hisrespiratory system and body in general.9. Plaintiffs allege that it was Defendants’ negligence that resulted in Plaintiff,Robert L. Plummer, working with and inhaling dangerous fibers produced by the productsmanufactured, supplied and sold by the above-named Defendants. Defendants owed a duty toPlaintiffs not to place a defective and unreasonably dangerous product into the stream of commerce. Defendants breached this duty owed to Plaintiffs and the injuries suffered byPlaintiffs were a direct and proximate result of the breach of that duty. This caused Plaintiff,Robert L. Plummer, to become sick with an irreversible disease that is unique to exposure toasbestos. Plaintiffs’ injuries were a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerousproduct and Defendants’ acts and omissions as described above. Due to Defendants’ negligenceand failure to warn that exposure was dangerous, Plaintiffs, being the users of the productssupplied by these Defendants, were unaware of any danger of exposure to Defendants’ productsand such failure to warn caused all injuries described herein.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...