United States Ninth Circuit

In a suit alleging fraud in relation to the manufacture of asbestos-based products, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) a sophisticated manufacturer of asbestos would have been aware of a potential misrepresentation beyond the statute of limitations; 2) appellant was clearly on notice that the court would look beyond the pleadings and would potentially convert a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment; and 3) there was only one reasonable interpretation of inquiry notice to plaintiffs regarding the fraud.

Appellate Information

• Argued 04/19/2007
• Decided 07/23/2007
• Published 07/23/2007

Judges

• DUFFY, District Judge:, Before:  JEROME FARRIS and RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judges, and KEVIN THOMAS DUFFY, District Judge.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Law Offices of Todd C. Ringstad, Todd C. Ringstad, Esq. for appellant Hamilton Materials, Inc., Lanier Law Firm, P.C., W. Mark Lanier, Esq., Kevin P. Parker, Esq., Eugene R. Egdorf, Esq. for appellant Hamilton Materials, Inc.


• For Appellees:
  
• Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Peter A, Bicks, Esq., Edwin V. Woodsome, Jr., Esq., Andrew S. Wong, Esq., Khai LeQuang, Esq. for defendant-appellee Union Carbide Corporation., Becherer, Kannett & Schweitzer, Anthony Bentivegna, Esq., Mark S. Kannett, Esq., Susan Beneville, Esq. for appellee KCAC, Inc., William H. Armstrong, Esq., for appellee Harcros Chemicals, Inc., McDermott Will & Emery LLP, by Chris M. Amantea, Esq., Hany Fangary, Esq., Robert Pryor, Esq. for appellee Harcros Chemicals, Inc., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, by William J. Sayers, Esq., Farah S. Nicol, Esq., Margaret I. Johnson, Esq., for appellee John L. Myers.