Barabin v. AstenJohnson Inc, No. 10-36142 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendants appealed the district court's entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs following a jury trial resolving plaintiff's claim that his mesothelioma was caused by occupational exposure to asbestos. Defendants contended that the district court abused its discretion by improperly admitting expert evidence. The court held that the district court did abuse its discretion when it failed to conduct a Daubert hearing or otherwise make relevance and reliability determinations regarding the expert testimony. The court held that the court's decision in Mukhtar v. California State University dictated that a new trial be provided in this circumstance.
Court Description: The panel vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for a new trial because the district court failed to fulfill its obligations under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The panel held that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to conduct a Daubert hearing or otherwise make relevance and reliability determinations regarding expert testimony. The panel held that the court’s decision in Mukhtar v. California State University, 299 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2002), amended by 319 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2003) (order), dictated that a new trial be provided in this circumstance. Judge Tashima concurred in all aspects in the majority opinion, and wrote separately to address an issue not addressed by the majority. Judge Tashima stated that it would be helpful if the district court would articulate whether there is an impeachment exception to the Washington collateral source rule. Judge Graber, joined by Judge Tashima, concurred fully in the majority opinion, but wrote separately to express her disagreement with the rule in Mukhtar, requiring the court to vacate and remand for a new trial. Judge Graber would conditionally vacate the judgment and remand with instructions to make a new Daubert determination, and only if the expert testimony was deemed not reliable should the district court preside over a new trial.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 25, 2013.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 15, 2014.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.