Hsieh v. Badger Oil Corporation (M.D. La., Oct. 14, 2021)

Our plain-English summary of Hsieh v. Badger Oil Corporation (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, October 14, 2021).

David Hsieh worked as an engineer in the Louisiana offshore oil and gas industry from 1979 through 1987. He sued 35 defendants for negligence and strict liability, alleging he was exposed to asbestos-containing materials aboard jack up rigs and submersible barges and developed malignant mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma and renal cell carcinoma. Seven defendants (Nustar, Murphy EXPRO, Union Carbide, Montello, Apache and two Baker Hughes entities) moved for summary judgment. They submitted statements of uncontested facts with record citations showing no evidence connecting his condition to their activities, even though he worked on hundreds of rigs. Hsieh missed his deadlines to respond and told the court he did not oppose the motions. The court applied the rule that a plaintiff must show a defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm. Because the defendants' facts were deemed admitted under the local rule, no genuine dispute remained on causation. The court granted all the motions and dismissed the claims against those defendants with prejudice.

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: October 14, 2021
• Docket: Civil Action No. 19-00408-BAJ-DPC
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. 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.

What the court held. A plaintiff in an asbestos-exposure case must show that a defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm. Where the movants' supported facts show no causal connection and the plaintiff does not oppose them, those facts are deemed admitted and summary judgment is required.

Issues decided: Causation, Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• David Hsieh: mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma, renal cell carcinoma

The defendants

• Nustar Pipeline Company, LLC
• Murphy Exploration & Production Company-USA
• Union Carbide Corporation (manufacturer)
• Montello, Inc.
• Apache Deepwater, LLC
• Baker Hughes Holdings LLC
• Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC

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. Badger Oil Corporation (April 20, 2021). 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.
• 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.

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.

October 14, 2021.

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana.

RULING AND ORDER

BRIAN A. JACKSON, District Judge.

As noted in the Court's prior orders, this is an asbestos-exposure case. From 1979 through 1987, Plaintiff was an engineer working in the Louisiana offshore oil and gas industry. Plaintiff alleges that during this time he was exposed to asbestos-containing materials aboard various jack up rigs and submersible barges, which eventually caused him to develop malignant mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma, and renal cell carcinoma.

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. Now, seven of the Defendants (collectively, the "Moving Defendants")—Nustar Pipeline Company, LLC ("Nustar"), Murphy Exploration & Production Company-USA ("Murphy EXPRO"), Union Carbide Corporation ("Union Carbide"), Montello, Inc. ("Montello"), Apache Deepwater, LLC ("Apache"), Baker Hughes Holdings LLC, and Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC (collectively "Baker Hughes")—seek summary judgment. (See Does. 206, 212, 217, 223, 224). In support, and consistent with this Court's Local Rules, the Moving Defendants have each submitted detailed Statements of Uncontested Material Facts (citing to specific record evidence), which collectively show that although Plaintiff worked aboard hundreds of rigs, there is no evidence of a causal connection between his current condition and the Moving Defendants' activities during the time period in question. (See Docs. 206-2, 212-2, 217-2, 223-2, 224-2).

Plaintiff's deadlines for opposing the Moving Defendants' Motions have long since passed. Moreover, Plaintiff has now affirmatively represented to the Court, that he does not oppose the Moving Defendants' Motions. (See Docs. 229, 234). 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). "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.'" Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Stated differently, "[i]f the party with the burden of proof cannot produce any summary judgment evidence on an essential element of his claim, summary judgment is required." Geiserman v. MacDonald, 893 F.2d 787, 793 (5th Cir. 1990).

To prevail in an asbestos-exposure case, the plaintiff must show, inter alia, that a particular defendant's conduct was a "substantial factor generating plaintiff's harm." Rando 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 Moving Defendants' summary judgment evidence demonstrates that there is no causal connection between Plaintiff's harm and their respective activities. Plaintiff tacitly concedes the same by failing to oppose the Moving Defendants' Motions. See M.D. La. LR 56(f) ("Facts contained in a supporting statement of material facts, if supported by record citations as required by this rule, shall be deemed admitted unless properly controverted."). Accordingly, there is no genuine dispute regarding an essential element of Plaintiff's claims against the Moving Defendants, and the Moving Defendants are each entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Loolara v. Nat'l Flood Ins. Program, No. 17-cv-00953, 2021 WL 3204485, at [*2] (M.D. La. July 28, 2021) (Jackson, J.) ("This Court has repeatedly admonished that summary judgment is about evidence, and a party that fails to direct the Court's attention to any evidence supporting his claims cannot carry his burden of showing a genuine, material dispute (or lack thereof)." (quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Nustar's unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 206) be and is hereby GRANTED, and that Plaintiff's claims against Nustar be and are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Murphy EXPRO's unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 212) be and is hereby GRANTED, and that Plaintiff's claims against Murphy EXPRO be and are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Carbide's and Montello's unopposed Joint Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 217) be and is hereby GRANTED, and that Plaintiff's claims against Union Carbide and Montello be and are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Apache's unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 223) be and is hereby GRANTED, and that Plaintiff's claims against Apache be and are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Baker Hughes' unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 224) be and is hereby GRANTED, and that Plaintiff's claims against Baker Hughes Holdings LLC and Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC be and are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Nustar Pipeline Company, LLC, Murphy Exploration & Production Company-USA, Union Carbide Corporation, Montello, Inc., Apache Deepwater, LLC, Baker Hughes Holdings LLC, and Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC are each dismissed from this action.

Sources

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