An eight-page opinion from the Western District of Wisconsin ruled that four chemical makers, Four Star Oil and Gas Company, Shell Chemical L.P., Sunoco (R&M) LLC, and Texaco Downstream Properties Inc., have not shown that dismissal for want of proper service is warranted in the product liability suit.
The case concerns a man who worked at a tire manufacturing facility for 40 years and was reportedly exposed to benzene-containing products designed and made by the defendants. More than a decade after he ceased working at the plant in 2016, the plaintiff was diagnosed with Mylodysplastic Syndrome, from which he died approximately seven months later. According to the plaintiffs, the man’s surviving spouse and his estate’s administrator, the man’s death was caused by his exposure to the defendants’ products.
Judge William M. Conley explained the case’s lengthy and complex procedural in this week’s opinion. In relevant part, four of nine total defendants, deemed “Group A” by the court, moved for dismissal based on the plaintiffs’ failure to timely serve them.
The court found that the plaintiffs indeed failed to initially serve the four movants and considered whether the plaintiffs corrected that failure by “obtaining leave to rename the Group A defendants in an amended complaint and then ultimately serving them.” Judge Conley then weighed the plaintiffs’ two-year delay in accomplishing service with the circumstances of the case.
“At this stage and under the unique circumstances of the litigation, [] it is most practical and more reasonable to include the Group A defendants despite woefully late service and allow this case to be decided on its merits as to all the named defendants,” the court opined.
Judge Conley agreed to extend the plaintiffs’ service deadline because the movants, represented by the same counsel as the other five companies, have been aware of the case since its beginning. The decision noted that even if the defendants were dismissed, it would be without prejudice, and that they could be re-sued in the same matter.
The court cautioned that it would be extremely inflexible with the plaintiffs going forward regarding further requests for extension.
The plaintiffs are represented by Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles P.C. and Doar, Drill & Skow S.C. The companies are represented by Chilton Yambert Porter LLP.
