EAST ST. LOUIS – Plaintiff Myron Sandoval of California, who sued in California and Illinois over a California accident, proposes to apply California law at trial in Illinois.
Minutes of a Jan. 12 conference before U.S. Magistrate Mark Beatty show the proposal surprised him less than two months before a trial date.
He asked for briefs.
Sandoval alleges in Beatty’s court that negligence of railroad car repair shop Metro East Industries caused his accident.
He alleges before Senior District Judge Saundra Brown of Oakland that BNSF Railway caused it.
The California action has run more than three years and lacks a trial date.
Beatty has brought his proceedings to the brink of trial in 20 months.
John Hill of Oakland represents Sandoval in both states, in association with lawyers in his firm and elsewhere in California.
They filed suit against BNSF in 2018, in Alameda County court, claiming Sandoval unloaded vehicles from a rail car at Richmond on May 29, 2018.
The lawsuit claims a wire cable in a lift system failed and the lift fell on him.
The accident injured Sandoval’s brain and fractured his spine.
BNSF is alleged to have negligently designed, manufactured, constructed, assembled for sale, wholesaled, retailed, owned, operated, repaired, maintained or controlled the car and related equipment.
BNSF removed the suit to district court.
Hill’s team filed suit against Metro East Industries in May 2020, claiming it released the car for service on Feb. 16, 2017.
That suit claims Metro East Industries invoiced BNSF for repairs.
Metro East Industries is alleged to have improperly adjusted, repaired, replaced and installed decks, winches and cables. It also allegedly didn’t use original manufacturer parts.
In California, Brown set trial to start last summer.
On June 2, Hill’s team filed a trial brief stating that BNSF’s negligent maintenance and inspection of the car caused the incident.
They claimed the car was sent to Metro East Industries by mistake. They provided a footnote stating Sandoval had a case against Metro East Industries in Illinois and he would move to limit any reference to it.
Judge Brown vacated the trial date in June, to allow the parties to focus their time and resources on a settlement conference.
She advised them that she’d set a trial date as necessary after the conference.
They reported a breakdown of discussions in October and requested a trial date.
She hadn’t set it as of Jan. 21.
In the Illinois action, at a conference on Dec. 15, the parties told Beatty they continued to pursue settlement negotiations.
On Jan. 4, Beatty ordered a joint status report identifying witnesses and outlining the number of days they anticipated their cases would require.
He wrote that he allotted two weeks for trial.
He received a joint report on Jan. 10, but didn’t post it for public viewing.
At a conference on Jan. 12, according to his minutes, he discussed a choice of law issue that the report raised.
“The status report is the first time the court learned that there was a dispute regarding choice of law,” the minutes state.
He ordered a brief from Hill’s team and received it on Jan. 20.
The team claimed Illinois law presumes that the law of the state where an injury occurred applies unless Illinois has a more significant relationship.
They claimed California allows a plaintiff to recover damages “even if he is 99 percent at fault.”
They claimed Illinois allows recovery only if he is less than 50 percent at fault.
“California has policy interests here because the state formulated its tort policies with California residents in mind,” they wrote.
“He deserves the protections afforded to him under California law.”
Beatty set a Jan. 26 deadline for a response from Metro East Industries counsel Beth Boggs of Olivette, Mo.