Lagrange v. Eagle, Inc. (E.D. La., Sept. 6, 2024, summary judgment)

Our plain-English summary of Lagrange v. Eagle, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, September 6, 2024).

Irma Lee LaGrange sued Eagle, Inc., Huntington Ingalls (Avondale's successor in the case) and Hopeman Brothers, among others. She alleged she developed mesothelioma from asbestos dust carried home on her husband Allen's work clothes, which she laundered. Allen worked at Avondale's Bridge City, Louisiana shipyard from 1973 to 1996 as a laborer, welder and pipefitter. The opinion says asbestos materials were used under contracts between Avondale and the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard and Maritime Administration, and under a joiner contract between Avondale and subcontractor Hopeman. LaGrange moved for partial summary judgment to bar defendants from asserting the Government Contractor Defense. Huntington Ingalls and Hopeman opposed. The court noted it had granted nearly identical motions in earlier cases, including Falgout v. Anco Insulations and Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls. Relying on the reasoning in Falgout, it granted the motion and held defendants may not use the defense. It also denied Hopeman's request to file a surreply.

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: September 6, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 23-628
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. 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.

What the court held. The court, relying on its reasoning in Falgout v. Anco Insulations and similar earlier cases, held that defendants were not entitled to use the Government Contractor Defense in this asbestos case.

Issues decided: Government Contractor Defense and Removal, Take-Home Exposure.

The people and their exposure

• Irma Lee LaGrange (family member): mesothelioma

The defendants

• Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (contractor)
• Hopeman Brothers (contractor)
• Eagle, Inc.

Other decisions in this case

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

• Lagrange v. Eagle, Inc. (September 6, 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.
• Lagrange v. Eagle, Inc. (November 22, 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.

Decisions this opinion cites

Earlier decisions in our library that the court cited:

• Crossland v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted plaintiff Linda Crossland's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that defendants Avondale and Hopeman were not entitled to government contractor (Boyle) or Yearsley immunity against her failure-to-warn and safety claims.

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.

IRMA LEE LAGRANGE,

v.

EAGLE, INC., ET AL.

Civil Action No. 23-628.

September 6, 2024.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

SECTION: "J" (5)

CARL J. BARBIER, District Judge.

ORDER & REASONS

Before the Court is a Rule 56 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Defendants' Government Immunity (Rec. Doc. 9). This motion is opposed by Defendants Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (Rec. Doc. 35) and Hopeman Brothers (Rec. Doc. 38), and Plaintiff has replied (Rec. Doc. 51). Having considered the motion and legal memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the motion for partial summary judgment (Rec. Doc. 9) should be GRANTED. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Irma Lee LaGrange allegedly contracted mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure by laundering her husband's work clothes. Her husband, Allen C. LaGrange, worked at Avondale's Bridge City, Louisiana shipyard from 1973 until 1996. Allen was allegedly exposed to asbestos at Avondale shipyard through his work as a laborer, welder, and pipefitter. This work created dust that accumulated on his clothes. Asbestos materials were used pursuant to contracts between the United States Government (U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, and Maritime Administration) and Avondale, and a joiner contractor between Avondale and subcontractor Hopeman. In the instant motion, Plaintiff now seeks to bar Defendants from using the Government Contractor Defense.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 56); see Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994). When assessing whether a dispute as to any material fact exists, a court considers "all of the evidence in the record but refrains from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence." Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398 (5th Cir. 2008). All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, but a party cannot defeat summary judgment with conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated assertions. Little, 37 F.3d at 1075. A court ultimately must be satisfied that "a reasonable jury could not return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Delta, 530 F.3d at 399.

If the dispositive issue is one on which the moving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party "must come forward with evidence which would `entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.'" Int'l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1264-65 (5th Cir. 1991). The nonmoving party can then defeat the motion by either countering with sufficient evidence of its own, or "showing that the moving party's evidence is so sheer that it may not persuade the reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in favor of the moving party." Id. at 1265.

If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may satisfy its burden by merely pointing out that the evidence in the record is insufficient with respect to an essential element of

the nonmoving party's claim. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, who must, by submitting or referring to evidence, set out specific facts showing that a genuine issue exists. See id. at 324. The nonmovant may not rest upon the pleadings but must identify specific facts that establish a genuine issue for trial. See id. at 325; Little, 37 F.3d at 1075.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff's argument and Defendants' oppositions are not new to this Court. Indeed, this Court granted nearly identical motions for summary judgment in Falgout v. Anco Insulations, Inc., No. 21-1443, 2022 WL 7540115 (E.D. La. Oct. 13, 2022) and Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, No. 22-2656, 2024 WL 216925 (Jan. 19, 2024). See also Adams v. Eagle, Inc., No. 21-694, 2022 WL 4016749 (E.D. La. Sept. 2, 2022); Broussard v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., No. 20-836, 2021 WL 5448795 (E.D. La. Nov. 22, 2021); Crossland v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 635 F.Supp. 3d. 491 (E.D. La. Oct. 19, 2022). Defendants have attempted to use the Government Contractor Defense in numerous cases in this District, and like in these other cases, Defendants are not entitled to use this Defense. For the reasons articulated in Falgout, this Court finds that Plaintiff's motion should be GRANTED.

Accordingly,

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for partial summary judgment (Rec. Doc. 9) is GRANTED. Defendants are not permitted to use the Government Contractor Defense.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hopeman Brothers, Inc.'s motion for leave to file surreply (Rec. Doc. 49) is DENIED.

Sources

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