Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (E.D. La., Jan. 20, 2024)

Our plain-English summary of Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, January 20, 2024).

Survivors of Roseanna Matherne sued Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) and other companies, alleging she developed mesothelioma from asbestos carried home on the clothes of her husband, who worked at Avondale Shipyard. She was diagnosed around December 1, 2021 and died on March 10, 2022. The plaintiffs asked for summary judgment on one narrow point: that she had mesothelioma and that the disease caused her death. The defendants filed oppositions that did not dispute those facts. Instead they asked the court to state that questions remain about the fiber type, source and origin of the asbestos, or whether asbestos caused the disease. The court noted that no expert on either side disputed the diagnosis or that it caused her death. It called the oppositions off-topic, said it was unnecessary to state that specific causation remained in dispute, and granted the motion, following earlier decisions in Cortez and Savoie.

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: January 20, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 22-2656
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment that Roseanna Matherne had mesothelioma and that it caused her death, over the defendants' off-topic oppositions.

What the court held. Summary judgment may be granted on the narrow facts that decedent had mesothelioma and died of it when no expert disputes them; the court need not state that specific causation and asbestos source remain disputed.

Issues decided: Causation, Wrongful Death and Survival, Take-Home Exposure.

The people and their exposure

• Roseanna Matherne (family member): mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (Avondale) (employer)
• Paramount Global (Westinghouse) (manufacturer)
• General Electric Company (manufacturer)
• Foster Wheeler LLC (manufacturer)
• Eagle, Inc.

Other decisions in this case

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

• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (October 28, 2022). The court granted summary judgment for the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (LIGA) and against the plaintiffs, holding that their claims were not timely 'covered claims' because they arose after the insolvent insurer's claim bar date.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (March 2, 2023). The court denied LIGA's motion for entry of a Rule 54(b) final judgment on the earlier summary judgment in its favor, so LIGA must wait until the whole case ends to appeal; the plaintiffs prevailed on this motion.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (January 2, 2024). The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion to compel a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Huntington Ingalls: Huntington need not present a witness, but must give the plaintiffs its litigation listing of prior cases within 14 days.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (January 19, 2024). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, so Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) and its insurers could not use the government contractor defense against the failure-to-warn and failure-to-enact-safety-measures claims.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (January 19, 2024). The court granted Avondale's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs' claims that Avondale assumed its insolvent insurers' obligations under the buy-back agreements; the plaintiffs lost this claim.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (January 24, 2024). The court granted Hopeman Brothers' motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs' intentional tort, alter ego and manufacturer strict liability claims, ruling against the plaintiffs and Avondale.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (February 21, 2024). The court granted Avondale's motion and quashed the trial subpoenas that Plaintiffs and Defendants General Electric, Foster Wheeler and Paramount Global had directed to Avondale as a corporate entity.

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.

TED J. MATHERNE, SR., ET AL.,

v.

HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED, ET AL.

Civil Action No. 22-2656.

January 20, 2024.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

CARL J. BARBIER, District Judge.

ORDER & REASONS

Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment that Roseanna Matherne Had Mesothelioma and that Mesothelioma Caused Roseanna Matherne's Death (Rec. Doc. 221) filed by Plaintiffs Ted J. Matherne, Sr., Ted J. Matherne, Jr., Giselle Matherne Ordoyne, and Vanessa Matherne Richardson. Defendants Huntington Ingalls Incorporated ("Avondale"), Paramount Global ("Westinghouse"), General Electric Company ("GE"), Foster Wheeler LLC ("Foster Wheeler"), and Eagle, Inc have filed memorandums in opposition to this motion. (Rec. Docs. 235, 236, 243). Plaintiffs have filed a consolidated reply to these oppositions. (Rec. Docs. 293). Having considered the motion and legal memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the motion should be GRANTED.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Court has recounted the facts of this case in numerous previous orders and provides the following summary. Roseanna Matherne was diagnosed with mesothelioma on or around December 1, 2021 and died on March 10, 2022 as a result of the disease. Her survivors subsequently filed suit against numerous Defendants including Avondale, alleging that she contracted mesothelioma from her exposure to asbestos on the clothes of her husband who worked at Avondale Shipyard. The instant motion by Plaintiffs merely seeks summary judgment on these undisputed facts: that Mrs. Matherne had mesothelioma and that mesothelioma caused her death.

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

In the instant motion, Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment on the question of whether Mrs. Matherne had mesothelioma which caused her death. Plaintiffs cite the opinions of seven different experts including Mrs. Matherne's treating physician, her oncologist, and three different experts selected by Defendants including a pathologist who reviewed Mrs. Matherne's medical records after her death. (Rec. Doc. 221, at 1, 2). No expert consulted in this case, retained by either Plaintiffs or Defendants, disputes Mrs. Matherne's mesothelioma diagnosis or that it led to her death. Defendants instead devote their oppositions to disputing claims that Plaintiffs are not making in the instant motion. For example, Avondale argues that "the fiber type, source, and origin of the asbestos" are questions of fact which should be left to the jury. (Rec. Doc. 235, at 1). Avondale requests that "in the event Plaintiffs' Motion is granted, . . . the Order state that, while the Court finds that Mrs. Matherne was diagnosed with mesothelioma, there remains a question of fact as to the type, source, and origin of the asbestos to which Mrs. Matherne was exposed, and which may have caused her illness." Id. at 2. Likewise, Westinghouse, GE, and Foster Wheeler request in their opposition that this Court explicitly state in its order that questions of fact remain as to the "source/origin and fiber type of the asbestos." (Rec. Doc. 236, at 2). Eagle, Inc.'s opposition is also entirely off topic, devoting space to arguing that there is a dispute over whether asbestos caused Mrs. Matherne's mesothelioma. (Rec. Doc. 243, at 2).

As Plaintiffs point out in their reply, none of the Defendants actually dispute that Mrs. Matherne died from mesothelioma. Instead, they waste the Court's time and clutter the docket by filing three separate unresponsive oppositions. It is not appropriate for parties to use oppositions to make off-topic points or to request that the Court memorialize these points in its Order. Defendants wish the Court to confirm that certain factual issues remain regarding the causes of Mrs. Matherne's mesothelioma. The Court would remind the parties that facts remain at issue until they are ruled upon or until the parties choose to resolve those issues themselves. Because neither of these things has occurred, it is unnecessary for the Court to state the obvious and explain that specific causation remains in dispute. Plaintiffs' motion is one that has been ruled on by this Court and others within the Eastern District previously. See Cortez v. Lamorak Ins. Co., No. 20-2389, 2022 WL 1135830 (E.D. La. Apr. 18, 2922). See also Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., No. 15-1220 (E.D. La. Dec. 20, 2017). For the same reasons as in Cortez and Savoie, and because of the lack of opposition from Defendants, the Court finds that summary judgment should be granted as to the question of whether Roseanna Matherne had mesothelioma and whether that mesothelioma killed her.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment that Roseanna Matherne had Mesothelioma and that Mesothelioma Caused Roseanna Matherne's Death (Rec. Doc. 221) is GRANTED.

Sources

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