Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Lockheed Martin Corp. nearly pulled it out. On Monday, the California Supreme Court held that the military manufacturer does not face a medical monitoring class action in a San Bernardino County toxic tort and cannot be sued in a separate case by a South Korean weapons manufacturer under the state’s unfair competition law. However, the court let the South Korean company proceed with a claim that Lockheed cost it financially by improperly interfering with a major military contract. In Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 03 C.D.O.S. 1825, Lockheed, of Bethesda, Md., was sued for allegedly blocking a deal between Korea Supply Co. and the Republic of Korea for new radar systems. Government investigators found that Loral Corp., now Lockheed, had offered bribes and sexual favors to secure the deal for itself, according to Korea Supply. Korea Supply claimed it lost a $30 million commission as a result, and sued for disgorgement of Lockheed’s profits under the UCL. In a 5-2 ruling written by Justice Carlos Moreno, the court held that disgorgement of profits is not an available remedy under the UCL. But it also ruled that Korea Supply could proceed with a claim of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage without having to plead that Lockheed acted with the specific intent of disrupting the deal. In Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court (Carrillo) , 03 C.D.O.S. 1842, the court, in a lead opinion by Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, held that the plaintiffs in a suit claiming toxic contamination at a site in Redlands cannot certify a medical monitoring class. “The question before us is whether plaintiffs, in moving for class certification, have met their burden of demonstrating that common issues of law and fact predominate,” Werdegar wrote. “We conclude they have not.” The court, however, did not say medical monitoring is forbidden in all class actions. “No per se or categorical bar exists to a court’s finding medical monitoring claims appropriate for class treatment,” Werdegar wrote, “so long as any individual issues the claims present are manageable.” Three justices signed a separate concurrence by Justice Janice Rogers Brown stressing the complexity of the claims and their unsuitability for class treatment. Moreno and Chief Justice Ronald George, meanwhile, would have allowed the class to proceed.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.