Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Manspeaker v. Intel Corp.

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle

January 29, 2014

Noah Manspeaker, by his parents and natural Guardians, Chris Manspeaker and Christine Kennedy, and individually; ReAnne Shaman, by her parents and natural guardians, Mark Shaman and Jullianne Shaman, and individually, Plaintiffs,
v.
Intel Corporation and ASM America, Inc., Defendants.

Upon Defendant Intel's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Shaman Plaintiffs: GRANTED

ORDER

JAN R. JURDEN, Judge.

AND NOW TO WIT, this 29th day of January, 2014, the Court having duly considered Defendant Intel's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the opposition and oral argument thereto, IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED THAT:

1. This is one of three "clean room" cases[1] in which Defendants have moved for dismissal on the bases that, among other things, Arizona does not recognize preconception tort claims and, even if it did, Plaintiffs have failed to allege a theory of causation.[2]

2. Plaintiff ReAnne Shaman ("ReAnne") was born March 9, 1998, with several disorders, including migrational disorder, cerebral palsy, right hemiparesis, and epilepsy.[3] Plaintiffs allege that ReAnne's disorders are the result of Plaintiff Parents' exposures to reproductively toxic substances during their employment at Intel's premises.[4] Like the parties in Rodriguez, Plaintiffs' first amended complaint ("FAC") expressly states that they "do not allege or assert that any Parent Plaintiff sustained any injury at all. In the event that Plaintiff Parent did sustain injury, that injury was not the cause of [ReAnne's] injury."[5]

3. Plaintiffs filed their FAC on January 20, 2012, asserting claims of: (1) negligence; (2) premises liability; (3) strict liability; (4) abnormally dangerous and ultra-hazardous activity; (5) willful, wanton, and intentional misconduct; (6) breach of an assumed duty; and (7) loss of consortium.[6] On May 10, 2013, Defendant Intel moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing, inter alia: Plaintiffs' FAC fails to allege causation;[7] Plaintiffs failed to establish a duty Defendants owed to ReAnne;[8] and, applying Arizona law in a way to recognize a preconception tort would violate separation of powers.[9]

4. For the reasons set forth in the Court's detailed January 28, 2014 Opinion in Rodriguez v. Intel Corp., [10] Defendant Intel's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.