Practices:

• Litigation
  • Product Liability and Toxic Tort

Experience

Bill Sayers focuses his practice on the defense of product liability and toxic tort lawsuits.  His trial practice has included more than thirty trials involving products liability, legal malpractice and toxic torts.

Before joining MLA,  Mr. Sayers spent four years as a judge advocate and military judge in the Marine Corps and five years as a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's office in Los Angeles.  As an Assistant Division Chief he handled one of the first criminal RICO cases in the Central District of California.  In his thirty years of practice in the area of Toxic Torts, he has served as national, regional and local counsel for clients involved in claims arising from exposures to formaldehyde, asbestos, beryllium and pesticides.  In 1994 he was admitted to the American Board of Trial Advocates.

Mr. Sayers has been recognized as a "Southern California Super Lawyer" in the Los Angeles Super Lawyers Magazine in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.

Notable Engagements

Examples of significant cases and matters that Bill has handled include:

United States v. Ralph Godoy, et al.: One of the first RICO prosecutions in Southern California, resulting in conviction of a Quaalude supplier operating out of a grocery and pharmacy in Watts.  In addition to conviction, the government seized a market, pharmacy, bar, second strip mall and a residence which had been purchased with funds obtained from racketeering activity.

Bernie Brockman v. N.L. Industries: A product liability action against Louisville Slugger arising from personal injuries suffered when a magnesium bat broke and hit a pitcher in the face.  Despite similar prior instances and a claim for punitive damages the case was defensed at trial.

Arlene Krejci v. Fibreboard: Represented Fibreboard in this wrongful death action which arose from a claim of colon cancer in a marine engineer.  Twin defenses regarding product identification and medical causation resulted in a defense verdict in Los Angeles.

Eugene Stitch v. Anchor Packing, et al.: This case was tried in the Northern District of Oklahoma in 1990 and involved a severely impaired tire worker with 3/3 ILO reading on chest x-ray.  The case had been preceded by three prior trial groups in which 25 plaintiff verdicts had been returned in the infamous "tire worker" litigation.  (Bill had not been involved in any of the prior trials but local rules and procedures made Tulsa a difficult forum for the defense).  This particular case was defensed, despite the extensive lung scaring revealed by chest x-rays and thereafter the clients were able to settle the remaining 200 cases for a very favorable sum.  This case effectively ended the tire worker litigation in Oklahoma.

Nicholas Haluskey v. Owens Corning Fiberglas: Represented United States Gypsum Company in this mesothelioma suit brought by a former Navy Seabee who had worked with both U.S. Gypsum and Owens Corning Fiberglas products.  The case was interesting because of the cooperation between the co-defendants.  OCF was able to mount a "limited exposure" defense despite the fact their product contained amphibole asbestos.  U.S. Gypsum was able to mount the "chrysotile defense." A defense verdict was obtained for both defendants.

Clyde Mark v. Flexitallic: This mesothelioma case resulted in a defense verdict.  Plaintiff served aboard World War II era destroyers during the Vietnam conflict.  Incredibly, the only asbestos containing material this boiler tender could recall was Flexitallic spiral wound gaskets.

Joseph Potter v. Dana Corp: A San Francisco jury found for the defendant in this two-week jury trial. Plaintiff claimed his mesothelioma was caused by his work with gaskets manufactured by Dana. Diagnosis of the disease was not contested but the jury found no defect in Dana’s  product. Dana was the only defendant to take the case to the jury.

Michael Mikul v. CertainTeed: Mr. Mikul died as a result of mesothelioma. His family alleged the exposure to asbestos-cement pipe contributed to his illness. A defense verdict was obtained after the five remaining defendants conducted a joint effort to persuade the jury Mr. Mikul’s illness resulted from his exposure to asbestos while in the Navy.

David Kalil v. Union Carbide: Mr. Kalil developed mesothelioma as a result of his “handyman” work and sued in Los Angeles. He contended Calidria asbestos used in his joint compound work caused his disease. Union Carbide’s defenses regarding its chrysotile asbestos used in joint compunds were accepted by the jury and a defense verdict was entered.

In addition to the foregoing, Sayers has been involved as defense liaison counsel in Southern California at the time General Orders for Complex Litigation were propounded by the Court in Los Angeles and was again involved in the promulgation of General Orders in Orange County, CA.

Education

• J.D., University of Oklahoma College of Law, 1972
• B.A., Oklahoma State University, 1969

Admitted

• California
• Oklahoma
• U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
• U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
• U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
• U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma