Hernandez v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2020)

Our plain-English summary of Hernandez v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, May 18, 2020).

Jesse Hernandez was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in February 2019. He sued a number of asbestos manufacturers, suppliers and former employers in state court, and the case was removed to federal court in Louisiana. As to Allied Chemical, now represented by Honeywell International as alleged successor, he claimed he was exposed at his family's grocery store and delicatessen from 1957 to 1966, where plant workers came in with asbestos dust on their clothes and he cleaned the surfaces they used. He also said he lived across the street from an Allied plant from 1949 to 1971. After the district judge denied Allied's motion to dismiss, Allied asked in the alternative for a more definite statement. The magistrate judge denied it. She found the petition was not so vague as to be unintelligible, Allied had not explained how it would be prejudiced, and the additional facts it wanted could be obtained in discovery.

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: May 18, 2020
• Docket: Civil Action No. 19-14685
• Stage: Motion to dismiss
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The magistrate judge denied Honeywell International's (as alleged successor to Allied Chemical) alternative Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement, so plaintiff Hernandez did not have to replead.

What the court held. A Rule 12(e) motion for more definite statement is disfavored and is granted only if the pleading is so excessively vague as to be unintelligible and to seriously prejudice the defendant; additional facts should be sought through discovery.

Issues decided: Premises Owner Liability, Trial Procedure and Discovery, Take-Home Exposure.

The people and their exposure

• Jesse Hernandez (bystander): mesothelioma

The defendants

• Honeywell International Inc., as alleged successor-in-interest to Allied Chemical Corporation (premises owner)
• Huntington Ingalls Incorporated

Other decisions in this case

Other rulings from the same court in the same case, in our library:

• Hernandez v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (April 13, 2020). The court denied Jesse Hernandez's motion to remand, so the Avondale Interests (Huntington Ingalls and related defendants) kept the case in federal court under the federal officer removal statute.
• Hernandez v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (May 8, 2020). The district court denied Honeywell's motion to dismiss, ruling that plaintiff Jesse Hernandez plausibly alleged Honeywell owed him a duty for asbestos dust carried on its plant workers' clothing.
• Hernandez v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (November 17, 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.

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.

JESSE HERNANDEZ,

v.

HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED, ET AL. SECTION: "A"(1).

Civil Action No. 19-14685.

May 18, 2020.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

ORDER AND REASONS

JANIS VAN MEERVELD, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is the Motion for More Definite Statement filed by Honeywell International Inc., as alleged successor-in-interest to Allied Chemical Corporation ("Allied"). (Rec. Doc. 162). This motion was filed "in the alternative if plaintiff's claims [were] not dismissed" pursuant to Allied's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. That Motion to Dismiss was denied by the District Court on May 8, 2020. For the following reasons, Allied's Motion for More Definite Statement is also DENIED. Background

Plaintiff Jesse Hernandez was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in February 2019. On November 6, 2019, he filed suit in state court against a number of asbestos manufacturers, asbestos suppliers, and former employers, among others, alleging their negligence in causing his mesothelioma. The matter was removed on December 19, 2019. Presently at issue are Hernandez's allegations as to Allied, which Hernandez describes as an "Asbestos Premises Defendant." In paragraphs 41 and 42 of his Petition, Hernandez alleges that he worked at the family grocery store and delicatessen from 1957 through 1966 and that during that time he was exposed to asbestos because "plant workers would come in with asbestos dust on their clothes and he would have to clean the surfaces they frequented and ate lunch at." He alleges the plant workers were occupationally exposed to high concentrations of asbestos on a regular basis. He also alleges that he lived in the family home directly across the street from an Allied plant from 1949 through 1971. He also alleges generally that Asbestos Premises Defendants "committed these negligent acts knowing full well that its employees. . . would be contaminated and injuries would follow or were substantially certain to follow."

On March 4, 2020, Allied filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Hernandez had failed to state a claim against it. On the same day, Allied filed, in the alternative, the present Motion for More Definite Statement. In denying Allied's Motion to Dismiss, the District Court found it "plausible that [Allied] owed a duty to Hernandez." (Rec. Doc. 221, at 5). The District Court explained that Hernandez's allegations "establish that the damage was foreseeable and that the danger from the asbestos dust on the [Allied] employees' clothing was probable." Id. The District Court concluded that "Hernandez has established enough facts to support a claim for negligence." Id. at 6.

Law and Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides that "[a] party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(e). The standard for evaluating a motion for more definite statement is whether the complaint "is so excessively vague and ambiguous as to be unintelligible and as to prejudice the defendant seriously in attempting to answer it." Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. McGriff, Seibels & Williams, Inc., 235 F.R.D. 632, 633 (E.D. La. 2006) (quoting Advanced Commc'ns Techs., Inc. v. Li, No. 05 CIV. 4628 (RWS), 2005 WL 3215222, at [*3] (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2005)). Given the liberal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8, Rule 12(e) motions are disfavored. Reedom v. Jones, No. CIV.A. 10-375, 2010 WL 4875636, at [*1] (E.D. La. Nov. 22, 2010). The Fifth Circuit has explained that "it is clearly the policy of the Rules that Rule 12(e) should not be used to frustrate this policy by lightly requiring a plaintiff to amend his complaint which

under Rule 8 is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss." Mitchell v. E-Z Way Towers, Inc., 269 F.2d 126, 132 (5th Cir. 1959). The tools of discovery, and not a motion for more definite statement, are the appropriate vehicle to develop the facts of the case. Id.

In its motion, Allied argues that the Petition is "devoid of any specific claim that Allied was negligent or at fault in causing him to be exposed to asbestos." Allied argues that even if one assumes that it was Allied workers who entered Hernandez's family store and exposed him to asbestos from his clothes, these allegations cannot establish that Allied owed a duty to Hernandez. It requests that if Hernandez's claims are not dismissed that he be required to plead a more definite statement so that Allied can adequately respond to his Petition.

The District Court has already concluded that the facts alleged by Hernandez are sufficient to state a claim for relief. In doing so, the District Court construed Hernandez's Petition as alleging that Allied plant workers would come into the store where Hernandez worked with asbestos on their clothes. The Court explicitly rejected Allied's argument that these allegations were insufficient to establish that Allied owed a duty to Hernandez. The Petition is not "so excessively vague" as to be "unintelligible." Allied has failed to explain with any detail how it would be prejudiced in responding to the Petition. The additional facts it seeks can be sought out in discovery. Allied is not entitled to a more definite statement under Rule 12(e). Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that Allied's Motion for More Definite Statement (Rec. Doc. 162) is DENIED.

Sources

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