Evans v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. (2024)

Our plain-English summary of Evans v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, March 18, 2024).

Marvin Evans sued twenty-four manufacturers, insurers and employers in Louisiana state court. He alleged that asbestos exposure while working as a boilermaker from 1969 to at least 1980 caused his lung cancer. The case was removed to federal court in New Orleans. After Evans died, his daughters were substituted as plaintiffs and added survival and wrongful death claims. Their amended complaint alleged that their father was exposed to asbestos at a Georgia-Pacific worksite in Zachary, Louisiana, and that this contributed to or caused his mesothelioma. Georgia-Pacific moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It said the amended complaint gave no other facts and that it had never operated a facility in Zachary. The plaintiffs filed no opposition. The court applied the plausibility standard for pleadings and found that the daughters had not alleged enough facts to support liability against Georgia-Pacific. It granted the motion.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
• Decided: March 18, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 23-4241
• Stage: Motion to dismiss
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. 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.

What the court held. A complaint must plead enough facts to make a claim plausible on its face, and the court does not accept conclusory allegations. The daughters' bare allegation of exposure at a Georgia-Pacific worksite did not meet that standard.

The people and their exposure

• Marvin Evans: lung cancer, mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP (premises owner)

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

MARVIN EVANS,

v.

TAYLOR-SEIDENBACH, INC., ET AL.

Civil Action No. 23-4241.

March 18, 2024.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

SECTION L

ELDON C. FALLON, District Judge.

ORDER & REASONS

Before the Court is a motion by Defendant Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP ("Georgia-Pacific") to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. R. Doc. 99. Having considered the briefing and the applicable law, the Court rules as follows. I. BACKGROUND

This case arises from Plaintiff Marvin Evans' apparent exposure to asbestos, which he alleges led to his diagnosis of malignant lung cancer in September of 2022. R. Doc. 1-2 at 3. Evans originally sued twenty-four manufacturers, insurers, and employers in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish. Id. at 1-2. Defendant Huntington Ingalls Incorporated removed the suit to this Court on August 25, 2023, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446. Doc. 4 at 2.

Evans' lawsuit alleges that he was exposed to asbestos-containing products because of his employment as a boilermaker with various defendant companies. R. Doc. 1-2 at 3. Evans contends that from 1969 to at least 1980, he worked at many sites, including those owned by Olin Kraft, International Paper Company, Shell USA, Inc., and Marathon Petroleum Company, LP. Id. At these worksites, Evans alleges that he used, handled, and/or was in the vicinity of others using asbestos-containing products, which subsequently caused his development of lung cancer. Id. Accordingly, Evans sued the defendant companies for their respective roles in causing his asbestos exposure. Id. at 3-14. Specifically, Evans contends that Defendants are liable under negligence and strict liability theories. Id.

Several defendants have filed their answers to Evans' complaint. The Defendants generally deny the negligence and strict liability claims. See e.g., R. Doc. 14; R. Doc. 23; R. Doc. 24; R. Doc. 25; R. Doc. 27. Many defendants raise affirmative defenses, including comparative fault; failure to mitigate damages; improper venue; assumption of risk; and third-party fault. Id.

On November 15, 2023, Defendant Exxon filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. R. Doc. 72. Exxon sought to dismiss Evans' claim for punitive damages should he seek such damages in connection with his allegations that Exxon acted "negligently, recklessly, willfully and/or because of wanton negligence." R. Doc. 72-1 at 2. Exxon also argued that Evans filed suit in an improper venue. Id. at 3. However, because Evans had not actually prayed for punitive damages, and because venue could not be determined yet at that stage, this Court denied Exxon's 12(b)(6) motion as premature. R. Doc. 75 at 3.

On January 31, 2024, Evans' daughters sought to amend the complaint due to their father's passing. R. Doc. 91. In their motion to amend, the daughters asked to substitute themselves as Plaintiffs and add survivor and wrongful death claims to the Complaint, and noted that defense counsel had not objected to their request. Id. at 1. This Court granted the motion to amend on February 1, 2024. R. Doc. 92.

Two weeks later, Defendant Georgia-Pacific filed the instant Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. R. Doc. 99.

II. PRESENT MOTION

Georgia-Pacific argues that the Evans daughters have not alleged a sufficient factual basis for their claim against Georgia-Pacific. Id. While the Evans daughters broadly state that their father was exposed to asbestos at a Georgia-Pacific worksite in Zachary, Louisiana, which contributed to or caused his mesothelioma, Georgia-Pacific notes that these are the only facts they allege surrounding Georgia-Pacific's liability. Id. at 1-2. Significantly, Georgia-Pacific avers that it has never operated any facility in Zachary, Louisiana. Id. at 2. Therefore, Georgia-Pacific argues that there is not a sufficient factual basis for the daughters' claim against Georgia-Pacific. Id.

Plaintiffs did not file any opposition to Georgia-Pacific's motion.

III. APPLICABLE LAW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that an action may be dismissed "for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2008)). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. A claim is plausible on its face when the plaintiff has pled facts that allow the court to "draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 570. Although a court must liberally construe the complaint in light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept the plaintiff's allegations as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996), courts "do not accept as true conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions." Arias-Benn v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 495 F.3d 228, 230 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Plotkin v. IP Axess Inc., 407 F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005)). IV. ANALYSIS

While Plaintiffs allege that their father was exposed to asbestos at a Georgia-Pacific worksite in their Amended Complaint, Georgia-Pacific states that it has never operated in Zachary, Louisiana. R. Doc. 99 at 1-2. Plaintiffs were provided an opportunity to oppose Georgia-Pacific's motion, but failed to do so. Therefore, this Court will grant Georgia-Pacific's 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim because the daughters have not alleged sufficient factual information to support their claim for liability against Georgia-Pacific.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, R. Doc. 99, is GRANTED.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• Louisiana asbestos laws
• Louisiana asbestos exposure sites