6 unchanged sentences
As of December 31, 2021, our subsidiary, Materion Brush Inc., was a defendant in two beryllium cases.
−Removed: During 2020, one new beryllium case was filed.
In Richard Miller v.
Dolphin, Inc.
−Removed: , case number CV2020-005163, filed in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, the Company is one of six named defendants and 100 Doe defendants.
+Added: , case number CV2020-005163, filed in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, the Company is one of six named defendants in addition to 100 Doe defendants.
The plaintiff alleges that he contracted beryllium disease from exposures to beryllium-containing products supplied to his employer, Karsten Manufacturing Corporation, where he was a production worker, and asserts claims for negligence, strict liability – failure to warn, strict liability – design defect, and fraudulent concealment.
−Removed: The plaintiff seeks general damages, medical expenses, loss of earnings, consequential damages, and punitive damages.
−Removed: A co-defendent, Dolphin, Inc., filed a cross-claim against the Company for indemnification.
+Added: The plaintiff seeks general damages, medical expenses, loss of earnings, consequential damages, and punitive damages, and his wife claims loss of consortium.
+Added: A co-defendant, Dolphin, Inc., filed a cross-claim against the Company for indemnification.
On August 12, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the cross-claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2 unchanged sentences
The Court of Appeals declined to accept jurisdiction on December 30, 2020.
−Removed: The Company believes that it has substantive defenses and intends to vigorously defend this suit.
−Removed: In 2019, one beryllium case was filed.
+Added: The court entered a scheduling order on September 14, 2021 that did not set a date for trial.
+Added: The Company believes that it has substantive defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself against this suit.
In Ronald Dwayne Manning v.
−Removed: , case number 19CI000219, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Tehama County, and later removed to the United States District Court, Eastern District of California (Sacramento Division), case number 2:19-CV-02202-MCE-DMC, the Company is one of four named defendants and 120 Doe defendants.
+Added: , case number 19CI000219, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Tehama County, and later moved to the United States District Court, Eastern District of California (Sacramento Division), case number 2:19-CV-02202-MCE-DMC, the Company is one of three named defendants in addition to 120 Doe defendants.
The plaintiff alleges that he contracted beryllium disease from exposures to beryllium-containing products during his employment as an auto mechanic, welder, sprinkler installer, and movie projector operator, and asserts claims for negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, and breach of implied warranties.
The plaintiff seeks economic damages, non-economic damages, consequential damages, and punitive damages.
−Removed: The Company believes that it has substantive defenses and intends to vigorously defend this suit.
+Added: The Company believes that it has substantive defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself against this suit.
+Added: No beryllium cases were filed in 2021.
The Company has insurance coverage, which may respond, subject to an annual deductible.
1 unchanged sentence
Materion Brush Inc., et.
−Removed: , case number 20CV0234, a wage and hour purported collective and class action, was filed in the Northern District of Ohio against the Company and its subsidiary, Materion Brush Inc.
+Added: , case number 20CV0234, a wage and hour purported collective and class action lawsuit, was filed in the Northern District of Ohio against the Company and its subsidiary, Materion Brush Inc.
(collectively, the Company).
−Removed: Plaintiff, a former hourly production employee at the Company's Elmore, Ohio facility, alleges that he and other similarly situated employees nationwide are not paid for all time they spend donning and doffing personal protective equipment in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law.
−Removed: Plaintiff also alleges the Company failed to include all remuneration he and others received for premium and bonus pay when computing overtime pay.
−Removed: The case is currently in the preliminary stages.
−Removed: The Company believes that it has substantive defenses and intends to vigorously defend this suit.
+Added: Plaintiff, a former hourly production employee at the Company's Elmore, Ohio facility, alleges that he and other similarly situated employees are not paid for all time they spend donning and doffing personal protective equipment in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law.
+Added: The case remains in the preliminary stages while the parties explore a negotiated resolution.
+Added: The Company believes that it has substantive defenses and intends to vigorously defend this suit absent a negotiated resolution.
MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
1 unchanged sentence
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.