U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana: Asbestos Cases

Our case-law library holds 353 asbestos decisions from the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (1991–2025). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• Kind of court: Federal district court

Decisions

• LeBOEUF v. Huntington Ingalls, Incorporated (2025). The court granted plaintiff Nolan LeBoeuf Jr.'s motion for partial summary judgment, holding that defendant Huntington Ingalls (Avondale) is not entitled to Boyle or Yearsley government contractor immunity against his failure-to-warn and failure-to-protect claims.
• Prude v. Fidelity and Casualty Insurance Company OF New York (2025). The court granted Avondale's unopposed motion for partial summary judgment, and Travelers' joinder in part, dismissing the surviving plaintiffs' wrongful death claims against Avondale and Travelers with prejudice.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2025). The magistrate judge recommended granting in part and denying in part Pelnor's motion: Pelnor may supplement its crossclaim with a bad faith claim against First State for events on or after January 20, 2025, but not for events between September 4, 2024 and January 20, 2025.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2025). The court ruled on Avondale's objections to plaintiff Sentilles's trial exhibits: it overruled some, sustained others (including expert reports and several publications as hearsay), deferred many to trial, and dismissed several as moot.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2025). The court granted Pelnor's motion for partial summary judgment and denied First State Insurance Company's cross-motion, holding that First State must indemnify Pelnor for all of its reasonable defense attorney's fees and costs.
• Thibodeaux v. General Electric Company (2025). The court granted Avondale's unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed Cynthia Thibodeaux as a plaintiff.
• Constanza v. Sparta Insurance Company (2024). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute, so the case stays in federal court.
• Ditcharo v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (2024). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that Avondale properly removed under the federal officer removal statute and that the court had supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, including the FELA claims against Union Pacific.
• Evans v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. (2024). The court granted Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ruling against the Evans daughters, who did not oppose it.
• Gomez v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2024). The court granted Gomez's motion for partial summary judgment against Avondale, barring its government contractor immunity defenses on the failure-to-warn and safety-measure claims, and denied the motion without prejudice as to Hopeman Brothers because of its bankruptcy stay.
• Hotard v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (2024). The court denied, without prejudice, Patricia Hotard's motions to dismiss the indemnity and defense claims brought against her by Avondale and Hopeman Interests, and also denied Hopeman Interests' motion for declaratory judgment.
• Hotard v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (2024). The court granted Avondale's partial summary judgment motion, granted Hopeman Interests' motion in part and denied it in part, and denied SeaRiver's cross-motion, so SeaRiver did not obtain indemnity from Avondale or Hopeman Interests at this stage.
• Jacob v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (2024). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that General Electric's federal officer removal was timely and that the court had subject matter jurisdiction.
• Johnson v. Johnson & Johnson (2024). The court granted in part the motion to dismiss filed by Johnson & Johnson and LTL Management: it dismissed with prejudice Ashley Johnson's unopposed construction/composition defect claim but let her express warranty claim go forward.
• Lagrange v. Eagle, Inc. (2024). The court stayed the entire case against Avondale and the other defendants until March 11, 2025, because of co-defendant Hopeman Brothers' Chapter 11 bankruptcy, over the plaintiffs' objection and in line with Avondale's request, with a reassessment of the stay to follow on motion.
• Lagrange v. Eagle, Inc. (2024). The court granted plaintiff Irma Lee LaGrange's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that defendants Huntington Ingalls and Hopeman Brothers may not use the Government Contractor Defense, and denied Hopeman's motion for leave to file a surreply.
• Lagrange v. Eagle, Inc. (2024). The court denied plaintiff Irma Lee LaGrange's motion to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand to state court, so the case stays in federal court against Avondale (Huntington Ingalls), Hopeman Brothers and Liberty Mutual.
• Legendre v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2024). The court denied summary judgment to Eagle and Bayer, and granted GE, Paramount Global and Foster-Wheeler partial summary judgment on the design defect and warranty claims while denying the rest of their motions, so the plaintiff Eleanor Legendre mostly kept her case.
• Legendre v. Louisiana Ins. Guaranty Association (2024). The court denied both the defendants' motion to limit or exclude plaintiff Eleanor Legendre's experts and Legendre's motion to exclude Dr. Bruce Case's opinion, so all the experts may testify at trial.
• Legendre v. Louisiana Ins. Guaranty Association (2024). The court granted in part and denied in part Hopeman Brothers' summary judgment motion (granted on intentional tort, alter ego and manufacturer claims; denied on professional vendor liability) and denied SPARTA's motion to stay; the expedited-consideration motion was denied as moot.
• Legendre v. Louisiana Ins. Guaranty Association (2024). The court granted Eleanor Legendre's motions (mesothelioma and its cause established; Avondale barred from government contractor defenses on failure-to-warn and safety claims), granted Liberty Mutual's motion on the professional vendor and commercial supplier claims, and granted Avondale's motion dismissing the intentional tort and fraud claims.
• Lewis v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. (2024). The court granted Bayer's unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed Avondale's third-party complaint against Bayer with prejudice, because the plaintiffs' 2001 release covered the current asbestos lung cancer claims, while preserving Avondale's right to seek a virile share credit at trial.
• Lyles v. K&b Louisiana Corporation (2024). The magistrate judge denied plaintiff Pamela Davis Lyles's motion for leave to amend her complaint to add non-diverse insurer Fireman's Fund as a defendant, ruling for the defendants.
• Marcella v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2024). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, so the case stays in federal court, because Avondale (with Hopeman and Wayne) raised colorable federal defenses under the federal-officer removal statute.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2024). The court denied Westinghouse's motion for partial summary judgment on its sophisticated user defense, so the failure-to-warn claims against it over Micarta remained for trial.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2024). The court granted Avondale's motion and quashed the trial subpoenas that Plaintiffs and Defendants General Electric, Foster Wheeler and Paramount Global had directed to Avondale as a corporate entity.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2024). The court granted Hopeman Brothers' motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs' intentional tort, alter ego and manufacturer strict liability claims, ruling against the plaintiffs and Avondale.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2024). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment that Roseanna Matherne had mesothelioma and that it caused her death, over the defendants' off-topic oppositions.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2024). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, so Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) and its insurers could not use the government contractor defense against the failure-to-warn and failure-to-enact-safety-measures claims.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2024). The court granted Avondale's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs' claims that Avondale assumed its insolvent insurers' obligations under the buy-back agreements; the plaintiffs lost this claim.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2024). The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion to compel a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Huntington Ingalls: Huntington need not present a witness, but must give the plaintiffs its litigation listing of prior cases within 14 days.
• McElwee v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (2024). The magistrate judge granted Huntington Ingalls' motion to compel and ordered plaintiff Robert McElwee to appear for deposition on April 1, 2024, as scheduled.
• Palermo v. Eagle Inc. (2024). The court granted in part and denied in part Avondale's motion to quash, narrowing the subpoena and requiring Avondale to produce relevant personnel records of Valmont and Glen Landry under a protective order, so plaintiffs largely prevailed.
• Ragas v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. (2024). The court granted Gulf Engineering Company's unopposed motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing Ellery Ragas's manufacturer, professional vendor and intentional concealment claims against it.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (2024). The court granted the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Ragusa family's wrongful death claims as not timely "covered claims"; LIGA won and the plaintiffs lost on those claims.
• Rivet v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (2024). The court granted the plaintiffs' (Janet and Kayla Rivet) motion for summary judgment that Tommy Rivet had mesothelioma, that asbestos caused it, and that it caused his death, over the opposition of Eagle and Travelers, while leaving the source of the asbestos open.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2024). The court denied plaintiff Sentilles's motion in limine to exclude Avondale's expert Christopher Herfel, finding him qualified and his opinions relevant and reliable.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2024). The court granted Avondale's Rule 12(c) motion dismissing with prejudice Sentilles's reasserted claims about post-June 1969 Avondale work and his father's and brother's Avondale employment, denied his motion for reconsideration, and barred him from using Pelnor's experts Pierce and Roggli at trial.
• Wilson v. Ham (2024). A magistrate judge granted Wilson leave to file a second amended complaint and recommended dismissing his § 1983 claims against Dr. Ham, Warden Fleischman, Sheriff Smith and Dr. Gore in his official capacity, and the reimbursement claim, while letting the medical-indifference claim against Dr. Gore individually go forward.
• Cadiere v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (2023). The magistrate judge granted plaintiff Bradley Cadiere's motion for leave to file an amended complaint adding a direct asbestos exposure claim against Huntington Ingalls (Avondale), and rejected Avondale's judicial estoppel argument.
• Crossland v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (2023). The court granted Woodward Design & Build's summary judgment motion on the strict liability claim and on exposure to products other than joint compound and pipe insulation, denied it on the negligence claim based on those two products, and denied Woodward's motion to exclude the two causation experts.
• Crossland v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (2023). The court granted defendant Burmaster Land and Development Co.'s unopposed motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Linda Crossland because she identified no evidence of exposure to asbestos from Burmaster's activities.
• Fiffie v. Taylor-Seidenbach (2023). The court granted plaintiff Monique Mohammed's motion and remanded the case to Orleans Parish Civil District Court over the opposition of defendant IMTT-Geismar.
• Gooding v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (2023). The court denied Swiftships, Inc.'s motion to reconsider its earlier denial of summary judgment, so the plaintiffs (Decedent's heirs) prevailed on the motion and the claims against Swiftships remain for trial.
• Hernandez v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (2023). The court granted the plaintiffs' (Hernandez's wife and daughter) motion to remand, declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, and sent the case back to the Orleans Parish Civil District Court over St. Joseph's opposition.
• Hotard v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (2023). The court denied Hopeman Brothers and Liberty Mutual's motion to reconsider the order letting SeaRiver and Exxon Mobil file a third-party demand, and denied their alternative motion to dismiss, so SeaRiver's contractual indemnity claim goes forward.
• Hotard v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (2023). The court granted SeaRiver and Exxon's motion for reconsideration and for leave to file a cross-claim and third-party demands against Avondale, Hopeman and Liberty Mutual, finding the motion timely, finding Avondale had waived arbitration, and finding an intervening change in controlling law.
• Hutchins v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (2023). The court granted summary judgment to Huntington Ingalls (as successor to Ingalls Shipyard), Redco, Sank, Inc. and Bayer CropScience for lack of evidence that Mr. Hutchins was exposed to their asbestos, and denied John Crane's motion, so claims involving John Crane's gaskets and packing proceed.
• Hutchins v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (2023). The district court denied the Hutchins plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment on exposure and causation as to A.W. Chesterton, Babcock & Wilcox, Combustion Engineering, Dixie Machine, Foster Wheeler and International Paper, so Continental Insurance and Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) prevailed on the motions.
• King v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (2023). The court granted Union Carbide's unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff Glen King's claims against it, because he could not link any asbestos exposure to a Union Carbide product.