PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ASBESTOS CASE CONSOLIDATION AND ADOPTION OF TRIAL PLAN “CONSOLIDATION III” Now come the Plaintiffs, represented by the Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C. (“Angelos”), and, pursuant to Maryland Rules 2-311 and 2-503(a), hereby move this Honorable Court for an Order to Consolidate for Discovery, Trial and Subsequent “Mini-Trials” the herein described pending Angelos personal injury asbestos cases. In support, Plaintiffs state as follows: 1. The Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C. represents more than 13,000 Plaintiffs

who have pending cases docketed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, all of whom allege asbestos-related personal injuries and that do not involve either a diagnosis of malignant

mesothelioma, allegations of asbestos/smoking synergy causation or allegations of special exposure1. 2. This Motion and the Supporting Memorandum with “Consolidation III” trial plan

request an Order that will consolidate for discovery and trial the pending non-mesothelioma, nonsynergy causation, and non-special exposure personal injury asbestos cases represented by Angelos

Special exposure personal injury asbestos cases involve those cases where it is alleged that Plaintiffs were only exposed to asbestos-containing dust generated as a result of the handling, removal and use of nontraditional asbestos-containing products.


in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Plaintiffs’ proposal identifies cases that will be tried to verdict on common issues in contemplation of subsequent “damages mini-trials” in conjunction with illustrative “Trial Plaintiff” cases that will be tried to verdict on all liability, damages and punitive damages issues. 3. The pending cases affected by this Motion and Supporting Memorandum are pending

cases now docketed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City that include: A. Allegations of asbestos-related disease such as asbestosis, pleural plaque, and pleural thickening; and Allegations of asbestos-related cancers and malignancies including respiratory system cancer, upper and lower gastrointestinal system cancer, head, neck and throat cancer, kidney cancer, pancreatic cancer and related metastatic processes.



Excluded from “Consolidation III” are cases with: A. B. Allegations of malignant mesothelioma; Allegations of synergy respiratory system cancer cases that involve cigarette and/or tobacco industry defendants; and C. Allegations of special exposure.


Personal injury asbestos litigation is a mature mass tort. Issues common to all

asbestos cases have undergone discovery, litigation and trial in Maryland and particularly Baltimore City Circuit Court over the past thirty years. The common issues include “state of the art”, product identification, product asbestos fiber release, product defect, and certain product liability proofs that are described more fully in Plaintiffs’ Supporting Memorandum. 6. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City has previously consolidated groups of Angelos

personal injury asbestos cases, including the “Consolidation I” Godwin consolidation that involved


more than 8,000 cases. See ACandS, Inc. v. Godwin, 340 Md. 334, 402 (1995); the “Consolidation II” Abate consolidation and cross-claim consolidation that involved nearly 10,000 cases. See ACandS, Inc. v. Abate, 121 Md. App. 590 (1998), cert. denied, 350 Md. 487 (1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1171, 119 S.Ct. 1096 (1999), and hundreds of cases resolved via consolidated trial and “damages mini-trial” groupings that involved up to 25 cases each. 7. Memorandum. 8. Consistent with the practice of “Consolidation II”, in order to illustrate disease The proposed trial plan is described more fully in Plaintiffs’ Supporting

processes, exposure, causation and damages, Plaintiffs’ counsel proposes that fifteen illustrative, trial Plaintiff cases be selected by Plaintiffs’ counsel from among the group of more than 13,000 cases that will be tried to verdict and final judgments on questions of asbestos exposure, defendant liability, damages and punitive damages. 9. Exhaustive discovery has been undertaken and completed in numerous asbestos cases

involving asbestos products, asbestos state-of-the-art, the asbestos-exposed trades and jobsite asbestos exposures. Plaintiffs propose adoption of discovery in the consolidated cases that will relieve the parties of the substantial burden of repetitive continuing discovery of common issues in asbestos cases. Plaintiffs’ discovery proposal is described more fully in Plaintiffs’ Supporting Memorandum. 10. Consistent with the practice of “Consolidation II”, Plaintiff-specific discovery should

be limited to non-duplicative discovery of the fifteen illustrative, trial Plaintiff cases. All other Plaintiff-specific discovery should be reserved for “mini-trial” phases of the trial. 11. “Consolidation III” will include cases that, if litigated and tried separately or in


smaller groupings, would consume many additional years of judicial resources. 12. “Consolidation III” will reduce the burdens of repetitive discovery, litigation and the

massive expenses of repetitive trials. WHEREFORE, for these reasons and for the reasons stated in Plaintiffs’ Supporting Memorandum, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court order all pending Angelos non-mesothelioma, non-synergy cases be consolidated for discovery and trial. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Peter G. Angelos ______________________________ Peter G. Angelos Ronald E. Richardson Theodore M. Flerlage LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS, P.C. One Charles Center 100 N. Charles Street, 22nd Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (410) 649-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful