Hsieh v. Badger Oil Corporation (M.D. La., Apr. 20, 2021)

Our plain-English summary of Hsieh v. Badger Oil Corporation (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, April 20, 2021).

David Hsieh sued 35 defendants, alleging that from 1979 through 1987 he worked as an engineer for Schlumberger Ltd. on jack-up rigs and submersible barges in the Louisiana offshore oil and gas industry. He claimed he was frequently exposed to asbestos-containing materials and developed malignant mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma and renal cell carcinoma. Two defendants, Badger Oil Corporation and Klentos Production Corporation, moved for summary judgment. They submitted affidavits and Hsieh's own discovery responses showing that neither company operated offshore, drilled wells with jack-up rigs, or handled asbestos-containing products during 1979 through 1987. Hsieh did not oppose either motion. The court applied Louisiana's rule that a plaintiff must show a defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm. Because neither company was in the same industry sector or geographic area as the alleged exposure, and Hsieh offered no contrary evidence, the court granted both motions, dismissed the claims against Badger and Klentos with prejudice, and dismissed both from the case.

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, Middle District of Louisiana
• Decided: April 20, 2021
• Docket: Civil Action No. 19-00408-BAJ-DPC
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The court granted summary judgment to Badger Oil Corporation and Klentos Production Corporation, dismissing plaintiff David Hsieh's claims against them with prejudice because he did not oppose and they had no role in his exposure.

What the court held. In an asbestos-exposure case under Louisiana law, a plaintiff must show that a particular defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in generating his harm; defendants who showed they were not involved in the relevant offshore work, with no opposition, were entitled to judgment.

Issues decided: Causation, Product Identification.

The people and their exposure

• David Hsieh: mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma, renal cell carcinoma

The defendants

• Badger Oil Corporation
• Klentos Production Corporation

Other decisions in this case

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

• Hsieh v. Apache Deepwater, LLC (July 2, 2020). The district court denied plaintiff David Hsieh's motion for reconsideration of its order denying remand, leaving in place federal OCSLA jurisdiction and the removal by defendants Apache Deepwater and ENSCO.
• Hsieh v. Apache Deepwater, LLC (August 9, 2021). The magistrate judge denied plaintiff David Hsieh's motions to compel discovery against BP, Chevron, Exxon and Texaco, so the defendants prevailed on the motions.
• Hsieh v. Badger Oil Corporation (October 14, 2021). The court granted seven defendants' unopposed motions for summary judgment (Nustar, Murphy EXPRO, Union Carbide, Montello, Apache, and the Baker Hughes entities) and dismissed the plaintiff's claims against them with prejudice.

Decisions this opinion cites

Earlier decisions in our library that the court cited:

• Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc. (Louisiana Supreme Court, 2009). The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeal's judgment for Ray Rando against his former employers JCI and Parsons, holding his tort suit was not barred by workers' compensation exclusivity or peremption and upholding liability and the $2.8 million general damages award.
• Quick v. Murphy Oil Co. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 1994). The appeals court reversed the $46,000 contribution judgment that the trial court had entered for Owens Corning Fiberglas against Garlock, because Quick's exposure to Garlock's asbestos products was trivial and not a cause in fact of his asbestosis.

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.

DAVID HSIEH,

v.

BADGER OIL CORPORATION, ET AL.

Civil Action No. 19-00408-BAJ-DPC.

April 20, 2021.

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana.

RULING AND ORDER

BRIAN A. JACKSON, District Judge.

Before the Court are two motions for summary judgment, submitted by Defendants Badger Oil Corporation ("Badger"), and Klentos Production Corporation ("Klentos"), respectively. (Does. 141, 147). Plaintiff does not oppose either motion. For reasons to follow, the motions will be granted, Plaintiff's claims against Badger and Klentos will be dismissed with prejudice, and Badger and Klentos will each be dismissed from this action.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is an asbestos-exposure case. Plaintiff alleges that from 1979 through 1987, he was an engineer employed by Defendant Schlumberger Ltd., working in the Louisiana offshore oil and gas industry aboard jack up rigs and submersible barges. (Doc. 1-12 at ¶ 6). Plaintiff alleges that in the course of his employment, he frequently was exposed to asbestos containing materials, which eventually caused him to develop malignant mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma, and renal cell carcinoma. (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 7, 15).

Plaintiff's First Supplemental Petition asserts negligence and strict liability claims against 35 Defendants, each of whom allegedly played some role in exposing Plaintiff to asbestos. (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 5). Now, two of the Defendants—Badger and Klentos—seek summary judgment, asserting that Plaintiff cannot show that they caused him to be exposed to asbestos because neither Badger nor Klentos operated offshore during the time of Plaintiffs employment. (See Docs. 141-2; 147-1). In support, Badger and Klentos have each submitted affidavits, and discovery responses from Plaintiff, establishing: • Badger and Klentos did not participate in, own, or operate any well that was drilled by jack-up rigs during 1979 through 1987;

• Badger and Klentos were not drilling contractors for offshore operations at any point in time during 1979 through 1987;

• Badger and Klentos did not operate any wells drilled between 1979 through 1987, located offshore in any location;

• From 1979 through 1987, Badger and Klentos never mined, designed, packaged, furnished, sold, specified, utilized, controlled, stored, handled, transported, installed, directed the installation of, supplied and/or removed asbestos-containing products;

• Badger did not drill its first well on the Outer Continental Shelf until December of 2003; Klentos has never drilled a well on the Outer Continental Shelf; and

• Badger's and Klentos's oil and gas activities from 1979 through 1987 were onshore and did not involve jack-up rigs.

(See Doc. 141-3 at ¶¶ 2-7 (Badger's Supporting Statement of Undisputed Material Facts); Doc. 147-2 at ¶¶ 2-7 (Klentos's Supporting Statement of Undisputed Material Facts)).

Based on this evidence, Badger and Klentos each argue that they did not play any role in Plaintiffs' development of cancer, and thus, Plaintiff cannot prove causation and his claims must fail as to these Defendants. (Doc. 141-2 at 3-4; Doc. 147-1 at 4-5). Plaintiff offers no opposition in response to Badger or Klentos.

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that the Court may grant summary judgment only "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). If the movant bears its burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of fact, the nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no `genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 587.

To prevail in an asbestos-exposure case, the plaintiff must show that a particular defendant's conduct was a "substantial factor generating plaintiff's harm." Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc., 2008-1163 (La. 5/22/09), 16 So. 3d 1065, 1088 (citing Quick v. Murphy Oil Co., 93-2267 (La. App. 4th Cir. 9/20/94), 643 So.2d 1291). Here, the summary judgment evidence shows that Badger and Klentos could not have played any role in causing Plaintiffs harm because neither was involved in the oil and gas industry sector—or even same geographic area—that allegedly exposed Plaintiff to asbestos. Lacking any opposition whatsoever from Plaintiff, much less an evidentiary showing sufficient to create a genuine dispute, Badger and Klentos have each carried their burden to show that their conduct was not a substantial factor generating Plaintiff's harm, and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rando, 16 So.3d at 1088.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Badger Oil Corporation's Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. 141) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Badger Oil Corporation are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Klentos Production Corporation's Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. 147) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Badger Oil Corporation are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Badger Oil Corporation and Klentos Production Corporation are each dismissed from this action.

Sources

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