Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantattorneyliabilitystatuteappealstatute of limitationsbad faithappellant
plaintiffattorneyliabilityappealbad faithappellant

Related Cases

Redman v. Walters, 88 Cal.App.3d 448, 152 Cal.Rptr. 42
View Case »
Vega v. Bloomsburgh, 427 F.Supp. 593
View Case »
Shimko v. Lobe, 103 Ohio St.3d 59, 813 N.E.2d 669, 2004 -Ohio- 4202
View Case »
Robinson v. State, 373 So.2d 898
View Case »
Flynn v. Edmonds, 236 Ill.App.3d 770, 602 N.E.2d 880, 176 Ill.Dec. 934
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Glaser v. Cincinnati Milacron, Inc., 808 F.2d 285, 55 USLW 2423, 6 Fed.R.Serv.3d 737

Facts

Alan Glaser worked at a chemical plant operated by Cincinnati Milacron, Inc. from 1970 to 1972 and died from chronic myelogenous leukemia in 1980. His widow, Ellen Glaser, filed a lawsuit in 1982 against 96 manufacturers and 5 users of benzene, claiming that his exposure to benzene at work caused his illness. The complaint was filed just before the statute of limitations expired, and the attorneys relied on an enterprise liability theory due to the inability to identify specific suppliers of benzene.

Alan Glaser worked at a chemical plant operated by Cincinnati Milacron, Inc. from 1970 to 1972 and died from chronic myelogenous leukemia in 1980.

Issue

Did the attorneys for the plaintiff act in bad faith under Rule 11 when they filed the complaint against the manufacturers and users of benzene?

Did the attorneys for the plaintiff act in bad faith under Rule 11 when they filed the complaint against the manufacturers and users of benzene?

Rule

Under the pre-1983 version of Rule 11, sanctions may be imposed against counsel only when the counsel's actions are found to be in subjective bad faith, meaning the claim is entirely without color and made for improper purposes.

Under the pre-1983 version of Rule 11, sanctions may be imposed against counsel only when the counsel's actions are found to be in subjective bad faith, meaning the claim is entirely without color and made for improper purposes.

Analysis

The court found that while the attorneys did not identify specific suppliers of benzene before filing the complaint, their reliance on the enterprise liability theory was not unreasonable given the circumstances. The attorneys conducted a reasonable investigation, including reviewing medical records and contacting the user defendants for information, which indicated that they had a colorable claim.

The court found that while the attorneys did not identify specific suppliers of benzene before filing the complaint, their reliance on the enterprise liability theory was not unreasonable given the circumstances.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, concluding that the attorneys did not file the complaint in bad faith and that the imposition of attorneys' fees was unwarranted.

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, concluding that the attorneys did not file the complaint in bad faith and that the imposition of attorneys' fees was unwarranted.

Who won?

Appellants (the attorneys) prevailed in the case because the Court of Appeals found that their actions did not constitute bad faith under Rule 11.

Appellants (the attorneys) prevailed in the case because the Court of Appeals found that their actions did not constitute bad faith under Rule 11.

You must be