Roussell v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (E.D. La., Feb. 25, 2022)

Our plain-English summary of Roussell v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, February 25, 2022).

Marsha Roussell sued Huntington Ingalls and other companies, including General Electric and Foster Wheeler, after being diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in November 2019. She alleged that she was exposed to asbestos secondhand, because her father and uncle worked at Avondale Shipyard, were exposed to GE and Foster products there, and brought the fibers home on their clothing. GE and Foster moved for summary judgment, arguing that Roussell had no evidence she was exposed to their asbestos-containing products. Roussell, who had a lawyer, did not file an opposition by the deadline. The court granted both motions because they were unopposed and appeared to have merit. It treated her failure to respond as an admission that she could not prove her claims against the two companies, and dismissed those claims with prejudice. The order is short and does not discuss any specific evidence.

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: February 25, 2022
• Docket: Civil Action No. 20-2857
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The court granted summary judgment to General Electric and Foster Wheeler because Roussell did not oppose the motions, and dismissed her claims against them with prejudice.

What the court held. A plaintiff who fails to oppose a summary judgment motion arguing she has no evidence of exposure to the defendant's asbestos products is treated as admitting she cannot prove her claims.

Issues decided: Causation, Product Identification, Take-Home Exposure.

The people and their exposure

• Marsha T. Roussell (family member): mesothelioma

The defendants

• General Electric Company (manufacturer)
• Foster Wheeler, LLC (manufacturer)
• Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (employer)

Other decisions in this case

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

• Roussell v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (December 17, 2020). The district court denied plaintiff Marsha Roussell's motion to remand, holding that the Avondale Interests (Huntington Ingalls and Lamorak) properly removed the case under the federal-officer statute, so the case stays in federal court.
• Roussell v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (January 12, 2022). The district court denied plaintiff Roussell's motion to dismiss Avondale's federal contractor defense and to remand to state court, so Avondale kept the federal forum.
• Roussell v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (March 14, 2022). The court granted Westinghouse's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Marsha Roussell's claim against it with prejudice, because she offered no evidence of exposure to Westinghouse-related asbestos.

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.
• McAskill v. American Marine Holding Co. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2009). The Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Eagle, Branton and Commercial Union and remanded for further proceedings, so plaintiff McAskill's claims go forward.
• Vodanovich v. AP Green Industries, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2004). The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for Sank, Inc. (formerly Buck Kreihs Co.) and Dixie Machine Welding and Metal Works, dismissing the wrongful death claim of the longshoreman's estate for lack of proof of exposure.

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.

MARSHA T. ROUSSELL,

v.

HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INC., etal.

Civil Action No. 20-2857.

February 25, 2022.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

ORDER & REASONS

BARRY W. ASHE, District Judge.

Before the Court are a motions for summary judgment filed by defendants General Electric Company ("GE") and Foster Wheeler, LLC ("Foster").[1] The motions were set for submission on February 24, 2022.[2] Local Rule 7.5 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion be filed no later than eight days before the noticed submission date, which deadline in this instance was February 16, 2022. Plaintiff Marsha T. Roussell, who is represented by counsel, did not file an opposition to either motion. Accordingly, because the motions are unopposed and appear to have merit,[3]

IT IS ORDERED that GE's and Foster's motions for summary judgment (R. Docs. 108 & 110) are GRANTED, and

Roussell's claims against GE and Foster are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

[1] R. Docs. 108; 110.

[2] R. Docs. 108-3; 110-3.

[3] This is a personal injury case arising from alleged exposure to asbestos. On November 21, 2019, Roussell was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. R. Doc. 1-1 at 2. Roussell alleges that her mesothelioma was caused by secondhand exposure to asbestos from her father and uncle who both worked at Avondale Shipyard at various times. R. Docs. 1-1 at 2; 1-3 at 3-5. She alleges that her father and uncle were exposed to GE and Foster products at Avondale Shipyard and brought the fibers home on their clothing, which caused her exposure. R. Docs. 1-1 at 6-7; 1-3 at 2-3. To prevail in an asbestos case under Louisiana law, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was exposed to asbestos from the defendant's product and the exposure was a substantial cause of her injury. Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065, 1088 (La. 2009). When there are multiple causes of injury, "a defendant's conduct is a cause in fact if it is a substantial factor generating plaintiff's harm." Adams v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 923 So. 2d 118, 122 (La. App. 2005) (citing Vodanovich v. A.P. Green Indus., Inc., 869 So. 2d 930, 932 (La. App. 2004)). Because there is a medically demonstrated causal relationship between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma, every non-trivial exposure to asbestos contributes to and constitutes a cause of mesothelioma. McAskill v. Am. Marine Holding Co., 9 So. 3d 264, 268 (La. App. 2009) (observing that the substantial-factor "burden can be met by simply showing that [the plaintiff] was actively working with asbestos-containing materials"). "Asbestos cases typically involve multiple defendants and courts have analyzed the cases under concurrent causation, a doctrine which proceeds from the assumption that more than one defendant substantially contributed to the plaintiff's injury." Adams, 923 So. 2d at 122 (citing Vodanovich, 869 So.2d at 933). GE and Foster argue that Roussell has no evidence that she was exposed to their asbestos-containing products. R. Docs. 108-1; 110-1. By failing to oppose the motions for summary judgment, Roussell has admitted that she cannot prove her claims against GE and Foster. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) ("Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.").

Sources

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