Sampey v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (E.D. La., May 26, 2022)

Our plain-English summary of Sampey v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, May 26, 2022).

Ethyl Sampey was diagnosed with mesothelioma in May 2020. She sued several defendants for negligence and strict liability, alleging asbestos exposure from the 1950s through the 1970s. She said that from 1957 to 1965 she lived with her grandparents and uncles who worked at Avondale and brought asbestos dust home on their persons and clothing. She also said that from 1966 to 1979 she worked as a bartender serving Avondale employees and was exposed to more secondary asbestos. Defendant Crescent Materials Service, Inc. moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence she was exposed to its asbestos-containing products. The plaintiffs, who were represented by counsel, filed no opposition by the deadline. The federal district court in Louisiana found the motion unopposed and apparently meritorious. It granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against Crescent Materials with prejudice. The court reasoned that by not opposing, the plaintiffs had admitted they could not prove their claims against Crescent Materials.

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: May 26, 2022
• Docket: Civil Action No. 20-2779
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The court granted Crescent Materials' unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against it with prejudice.

What the court held. A plaintiff who fails to oppose a summary judgment motion is treated as admitting she cannot prove an essential element, here exposure to the defendant's asbestos-containing products, so summary judgment is entered against her.

Issues decided: Trial Procedure and Discovery, Product Identification.

The people and their exposure

• Ethyl Sampey (family member): mesothelioma

The defendants

• Crescent Materials Service, Inc.

Other decisions in this case

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

• Sampey v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (December 7, 2020). The court denied plaintiff Ethel Sampey's motion to remand, holding that the Avondale Interests' federal-officer removal was timely and rested on a colorable Boyle defense.
• Sampey v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (November 2, 2021). The court granted Hopeman's unopposed motion, joined by Avondale, Travelers, International Paper and Amchem, and dismissed with prejudice Ethel Sampey's loss of consortium, service and society claims against them.
• Sampey v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (April 28, 2022). The court granted the unopposed summary judgment motions of Grefco and Viking Pump and dismissed the claims against them by the plaintiffs and crossclaimant Avondale with prejudice.
• Sampey v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (June 23, 2022). The court granted the unopposed summary judgment motions of Goulds Pumps and Crown Cork & Seal and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against them with prejudice.

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.

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.

ETHYL SAMPEY,

v.

ANCO INSULATIONS, INC., etal. SECTION M (1).

Civil Action No. 20-2779.

May 26, 2022.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

ORDER & REASONS

BARRY W. ASHE, District Judge.

Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Crescent Materials Service, Inc. ("Crescent

Materials").[1] The motion was set for submission on June 2, 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 May 25, 2022. Plaintiffs Darren J. Folse and Mark A. Sampey, individually and on behalf of Ethel Sampey, who are represented by counsel, did not file an opposition to the motion. Accordingly, because the motion is unopposed and appears to have merit,[3]

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment filed by Crescent Materials (R. Doc. 216) is GRANTED, and

plaintiffs' claims against Crescent Materials are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

[1] R. Doc. 216.

[2] R. Doc. 216-4.

[3] This case involves claims for asbestos exposure. On May 23, 2020, Ethyl Sampey was diagnosed with mesothelioma. R. Doc. 1-2 at 5. She filed this suit asserting negligence and strict liability claims against several defendants, alleging that her disease was caused by exposure to asbestos that occurred from the 1950s through the 1970s. Id. at 1-24. More specifically, Sampey alleges that from 1957 to 1965 she lived with her grandparents, along with her uncles who worked at Avondale where they encountered asbestos dust and brought it home on their persons and clothing, which resulted in Sampey's exposure. Id. at 4. Sampey also alleges that from 1966 to 1979 she worked as a bartender serving Avondale employees and thus encountered more secondary asbestos exposure. Id. at 4-5. 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). Crescent Materials argues that there is no evidence that Sampey was exposed to its asbestos-containing products. R. Doc. 216-1. By failing to oppose the motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs have admitted that they cannot prove their claims against Crescent Materials. 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