Olds v. 3M Company (C.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2014)

Our plain-English summary of Olds v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, Central District of California, February 14, 2014).

Paul Olds sued 3M Company and other defendants, including Dana Companies, LLC. He alleged that he developed mesothelioma from asbestos exposure during Air Force service from 1948 to 1968 and while employed by Ryder Truck Rental from 1968 to 1980. As to Dana, he claimed exposure came from Victor gaskets at Ryder. Dana moved for summary judgment. The court found that Olds could not recall the manufacturer of the gaskets used at Ryder. He argued that Cummins engines were used at the shop and that Cummins used only Dana gaskets. But Cummins bought gaskets from at least nine suppliers, so Dana being one possible source did not create a genuine factual dispute about exposure. The court also found that Olds worked mainly in a supervisory role and rarely, if ever, worked on Cummins engines himself, which made exposure speculative. The court granted summary judgment for Dana and dismissed Olds's claims against it.

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, Central District of California
• Decided: February 14, 2014
• Docket: Case No. 2:12-cv-08539-R (MRWx)
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: California

Outcome. The court granted Dana Companies, LLC's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Paul Olds's claims against Dana and entering judgment for Dana.

What the court held. Evidence that the defendant was one of nine possible gasket suppliers to an engine maker does not raise a genuine issue of fact that the plaintiff was exposed to that defendant's product. Exposure was also too speculative where the plaintiff worked in a supervisory role and rarely worked on the engines himself.

Issues decided: Product Identification.

The people and their exposure

• Paul Olds: mesothelioma

The defendants

• Dana Companies, LLC (manufacturer)

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.

PAUL OLDS, Plaintiff,

v.

3M COMPANY; etal., Defendants.

Case No. 2:12-cv-08539-R (MRWx).

February 14, 2014.

UNCONTROVERTED FACTS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 1. Plaintiff alleges that he has 1. Plaintiff's Complaint, ¶¶ 51-59, pp. developed mesothelioma as a result of 25-47 (Exhibit "B"). his alleged exposure to asbestos from a multitude of products while in the U.S. Air Force from 1948 to 1968 and while employed by Ryder Truck Rental ("Ryder") 1968 to 1980. 2. Plaintiff's Complaint asserts causes 2. Plaintiff's Complaint, pp. 48, 51, 53 of action for negligence, strict products (Exhibit "B"). (Plaintiff also alleges a liability and breach of warranty against cause of action for conspiracy, but it is numerous defendants, including Dana. not alleged against Dana.) 3. With respect to Defendant Dana, 3. Plaintiff's Complaint, ¶53 1., pp. 34, Plaintiff contends that he was exposed 37 (Exhibit "B"); Plaintiff's Responses to to asbestos from his work with Dana's Dana's Special Interrogatories, No. 1, p. UNCONTROVERTED FACTS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Victor gaskets while working for 145 (Exhibit "F"). Ryder. 4. Plaintiff is the sole percipient 4. Plaintiff's Responses to Dana's witness he has identified as possessing Special Interrogatories, No. 21, pp. 165-166 knowledge of facts supporting the (Exhibit "F"). contention that Dana is liable to him. 5. Plaintiff testified that he was first 5. Deposition of Paul Olds, pp. 98:10-18. hired as a refrigeration mechanic at 102:16-19, 107:11-109:17 (Exhibit "E"). Ryder in 1968 and worked at the "Gore Avenue" facility for 6 months, then went to school in Denver for 6 weeks (all classroom) and returned to the Gore Avenue facility for about 2 1/2 months. 6. Plaintiff could not identify the 6. See Deposition of Paul Olds, pp. brand name, manufacturer or supplier 111:23-113:12, 114:2-19 (Exhibit "E"). of any components at the Gore Avenue facility. 7. In 1971, Plaintiff worked at Ryder's 7. Deposition of Paul Olds, pp. 109:21-110:14, Director's Row/Central Park facility 118:17-21 (Exhibit "E"). where he was the service manager/shop supervisor and spent 90 per cent of his time in his office. 8. In 1975, Plaintiff became the safety 8. Deposition of Paul Olds, pp. 106:6-8, UNCONTROVERTED FACTS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE manager at the Ryder's Director's 118:22-119:10 (Exhibit "E"). Row/Central Park, but he was on the road "all the time." 9. Plaintiff could not identify the 9. Deposition of Paul Olds, pp. 115:24-117:14 brand name, manufacturer of any parts (Exhibit "E"). removed or replaced at the Director's Row facility. 10. With one exception, for any Ryder 10. Deposition of Paul Olds, pp. 128:22-130:10 location where work was being (Exhibit "E"). performed, Plaintiff could not identify the brand name, manufacturer or supplier of any component parts. 11. Plaintiff testified on direct 11. Deposition of Paul Olds, pp. 101:13-23 examination that he did not recall the (Exhibit "E"). manufacturer of the gaskets that were used at Ryder, except that they tried to use the manufacturer's gaskets. 12. Plaintiff testified that he himself 12. Deposition of Paul Olds, pp. 99:22-100:6 never worked with engine gaskets at (Exhibit "E"). Ryder, but others around him were working with them. 13. Plaintiff admitted that he replaced 13. Deposition of Paul Olds, pp. 135:6-9; a gasket on a Thermo King 136:7-139:18 (Exhibit "E"). refrigeration unit with a Mercedes engine, United States District Court, C.D. California.

UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUPPORTING

DEFENDANT DANA COMPANIES, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

MANUEL L. REAL, Judge.

Defendant Dana Companies, LLC's ("Dana") Motion for Summary Judgment, alternatively Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Plaintiff Paul Olds ("Motion"), came on regularly for hearing on January 27, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Manuel L. Real, United States District Judge presiding in Courtroom 8 of the above-referenced Court. After considering all papers filed in support of the Motion, including all admissible evidence filed in support of the Motion, having read and considered all papers filed in opposition to the Motion, including all admissible evidence filed in opposition to the Motion, the Court hereby makes the following findings of uncontroverted facts and conclusions of law supporting the entry of summary judgment in favor of Dana Companies, LLC's favor and against Plaintiff Paul Olds.

but he did not have any UNCONTROVERTED FACTS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE information concerning the gasket

removed or replaced, including its composition but he believed the replacement gasket was obtained from Thermo King. 14. Plaintiff testified that Cummins 14. Deposition of Paul Olds, pp. 120:2-121:4; gaskets were used as replacement 122:3-123:2; 127:12-16 (Exhibit gaskets and that Cummins gaskets "E"). were carried in the parts room at Ryder. 15. Plaintiff knew the gaskets at 15. Deposition of Paul Olds, pp. 121:13-16, Ryder were Cummins because the 122:3-7, 134:16-21 (Exhibit "E"). gaskets came in packaging with the name Cummins on the packaging and Cummins is the only brand of gasket Plaintiff specifically could recall being used at Ryder. 16. Cummins, Inc. purchased its 16. Cummins Inc.'s Responses to gaskets from no less than nine different Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, No. 1, gasket manufacturers. p. 224 (Exhibit "I"). 17. Dana propounded comprehensive 17. Meyers Declaration, ¶ 5; Plaintiff's special discovery requesting Plaintiff Responses to Dana's Special to identify all facts and evidence upon Interrogatories, Nos., 1,5-6, 15-21, pp. which he bases his claim that he was 144-147, 153-154, 160-166 (Exhibit exposed to asbestos-containing "F"); Plaintiff's Responses to Dana's products for which Dana is Request for the Production of UNCONTROVERTED FACTS SPPORTING EVIDENCE responsible. Documents, Nos. 24-25, pp. 179-180 (Exhibit "G"); Plaintiff's Responses to Dana's Request for Admissions, Nos. 1-3, 6-11, pp. 203-207 (Exhibit "H"). 18. In response to Dana's special 18. Plaintiff's Responses to Dana's discovery concerning Plaintiff's claim Special Interrogatories, Nos., 1, 5-6, pp. that he was exposed to asbestos-containing 15-21, 144-147, 153-154, 160-166 products for which Dana is (Exhibit "F"). responsible, Plaintiff asserted boiler plate objections and simply alleged that he was exposed to asbestos from his work with or around Victor gaskets. 19. In response to Dana's special 19. Plaintiff's Responses to Dana's discovery concerning Plaintiff's claim Special Interrogatories, Nos., 1, 5-6, pp. that he was exposed to asbestos-containing 15-21, 144-147, 153-154, 160-166 products for which Dana is (Exhibit "F"). responsible, Plaintiff provided absolutely no additional facts to support his claim that he was exposed to asbestos from his alleged work with Victor gaskets and failed to even identify the work sites where he was exposed, when the exposures occurred or the manner in which the exposures occurred as requested by the UNCONTROVERTED FACTS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE interrogatories. 20. In response to Dana's request for 20. Plaintiff's Responses to Dana's all documents in support of Plaintiff's Request for the Production of Documents claims against Dana, Plaintiff asserted Nos., 24-25, 31, 33, 36-39, pp. 179-189 boiler plate objections and identified a (Exhibit "G"). See also, Plaintiff's list of essentially irrelevant and non-responsive Responses to Dana's Request for responsive documents, i.e., the Admission, Nos. 1-3, 6-11, pp. 203-210 Complaint, Work History Sheet, (Exhibit "H"); Plaintiff's Responses to Responses to Standard Interrogatories, Dana's Special Interrogatories, Nos., 5-6, Plaintiff's deposition testimony (where pp. 153-154 (Exhibit "F"). Plaintiff had no information concerning Victor gaskets), Plaintiff's medical records, employment records and social security records, Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's written discovery and the testimony of unidentified Dana's "person(s) most knowledgeable, agents or employees, which has been and/or will be taken in this case."

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The substantive law determines which facts are material, and a factual issue is genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). 2. Plaintiff contends that he was exposed to asbestos by Dana gaskets while he worked for Ryder, and while Plaintiff testified in his deposition that he could not recall any of the manufacturers of the gaskets used at Ryder, he contends he can establish that he worked with Dana gaskets because Cummins engines were used at the Ryder shop, and Cummins exclusively used Dana gaskets.

2. Cummins used at least nine different suppliers of gaskets in its engines at the time Plaintiff worked at Ryder and the fact that Dana was one of nine possible sources of gaskets to Cummins engines is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding exposure. Garcia versus Joseph Vince Company, 84 Cal.App.3d 868 (1978).

3. The evidence also shows that the Plaintiff acted in a supervisory role at Ryders and therefore rarely, if ever, personally worked on Cummins engines. Thus, evidence of exposure is too speculative and insignificant to create a genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986).

4. For the foregoing reasons, and pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 56, Plaintiff's causes of action set forth in his Complaint should be, and hereby are, dismissed and Defendant Dana Companies, LLC shall have judgment in its favor.

Sources

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