GlobalFoundries wins complete victory on summary judgment and motion to exclude experts

Client(s) GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc.

Jones Day won a complete victory on behalf of GlobalFoundries U.S., Inc. on its motions for summary judgment and to exclude plaintiff's experts regarding personal injury claims arising from an alleged exposure to chemicals in the workplace. Jones Day also successfully defeated plaintiff's late-breaking motion to amend his claims, securing the win. The win resolved all claims against GlobalFoundries and ended the case arising from plaintiff's allegations that he developed a rare vasculitis disease after being exposed to substances at a GlobalFoundries' work site.

At the outset of the case, Jones Day successfully moved to dismiss plaintiff's claims for (i) strict products liability; (ii) breach of express warranty; (iii) breach of implied warranty; and (iv) willful and wanton misconduct. Jones Day also successfully moved for phased discovery, the first phase of which was limited to discovery regarding general causation, followed by early summary judgment motions on the general causation of GPA.

Jones Day then conducted expert and general causation discovery. After the close of general causation discovery and the day before summary judgment motions were to be filed, plaintiff moved to file a second amended complaint attempting to expand his alleged exposure period and the substances to which he was exposed. The next day, GlobalFoundries presented its extensive expert evidence in its motions for summary judgment and to exclude plaintiff's experts based on their lack of qualifications and the unreliability of their opinions. GlobalFoundries also filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion to amend arguing that the proposed amendment was both prejudicial and futile.

The case was resolved by a detailed, thorough, and well-reasoned 41 page decision and order from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granting GlobalFoundries' motion for summary judgment, excluding the opinions of plaintiff's experts as unreliable, and denying plaintiff's motion to amend as prejudicial and futile.

Rizzo v. Applied Materials, Inc., Case No. 15-CV-557 (N.D.N.Y.)