Sanchez v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (E.D. La., Mar. 14, 2022)

Our plain-English summary of Sanchez v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, March 14, 2022).

Eldridge Joseph Sanchez, Jr. sued several companies, saying he was exposed to asbestos-containing products and developed mesothelioma. He died during the case, and substitute plaintiffs were later added. Two defendants, Viking Pump and Grefco, asked the federal court in Louisiana for summary judgment. They argued that nothing in the plaintiff's deposition testimony, discovery responses or expert reports mentioned them or their products. No party opposed the motions. The court explained that under Louisiana law the plaintiff had to show significant exposure to each defendant's product and that the exposure was a substantial factor in causing his injury. Because the defendants pointed out the missing evidence and the plaintiff offered none, the court found no genuine factual dispute. It granted both motions and dismissed the claims against Viking and Grefco with prejudice. Cross-claims against them had already been dismissed, so both were removed as defendants.

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: March 14, 2022
• Docket: Civil Action No. 20-2973
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The district court granted unopposed summary judgment for Viking Pump and Grefco, dismissing the plaintiff's claims against them with prejudice for lack of evidence of exposure to their products.

What the court held. Under Louisiana law, an asbestos plaintiff must show significant exposure to the defendant's product and that the exposure was a substantial factor in causing the injury; failing to oppose a motion that points out the lack of such evidence results in summary judgment.

Issues decided: Causation, Product Identification.

The people and their exposure

• Eldridge Joseph Sanchez, Jr.: mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Viking Pump, Inc. (manufacturer)
• Grefco, Inc. (manufacturer)

Other decisions in this case

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

• Sanchez v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (April 21, 2021). The court granted Avondale's motion to dismiss Sanchez's loss of consortium claim and granted Lamorak Insurance's unopposed motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims against Lamorak.
• Sanchez v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (March 15, 2022). The court granted unopposed summary judgment for Crown Cork & Seal, Atwood & Morrill, and Crescent Materials, dismissing plaintiff's claims against them with prejudice.
• Sanchez v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (March 31, 2022). The court granted seven unopposed summary judgment motions by John Crane, Pharmacia, Bayer CropScience, Crane Company, Century Indemnity, Zurich American and Goulds Pumps, dismissing all 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.
• 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.
• Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 1998). The court affirmed the jury verdicts for the plaintiffs against Owens-Corning Fiberglas (Kaylo insulation) and Rock Wool (One Shot cement), reversed the judgments against Garlock, A.W. Chesterton and Flexitallic, affirmed the judgments against Abadie, Naquin and Terrebonne and the dismissal of Plaisance's claim as prescribed, and ordered a virile-share reduction for Avondale's settlement that, on rehearing, applies only to Duronslet.

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.

ELDRIDGE JOSEPH SANCHEZ, JR.

v.

ANCO INSULATIONS, INC., ET AL., SECTION "R" (4).

Civil Action No. 20-2973.

March 14, 2022.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

ORDER AND REASONS

SARAH S. VANCE, District Judge.

Before the Court are two motions for summary judgment, filed respectively by Viking Pump, Inc. ("Viking")[1] and Grefco, Inc. [2] No party opposes the motions.[3] For the following reasons, the Court grants both motions.

I. BACKGROUND

This is an asbestos-exposure case. Decedent Eldridge Joseph Sanchez, Jr. alleged that he was exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured by, inter alia, Viking and Grefco, and developed mesothelioma as a result. Viking and Grefco have each moved for summary judgment, contending that there is no evidence that Sanchez was exposed to their respective products. Viking and Grefco each point to plaintiff's deposition testimony,[4] discovery responses,[5] and expert reports,[6] which they contend make no mention of Viking, Grefco, or their products. There is no opposition to either motion. The Court considers the motion below.

II. DISCUSSION

Summary judgment is warranted when "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (per curiam). 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 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 Court finds that both Viking and Grefco have discharged their respective summary-judgment burdens by pointing out that plaintiff's evidence is inadequate to meet essential elements of his claims against them. Specifically, plaintiff is unable to meet his burden to show that (1) he had "significant exposure" to Viking or Grefco's products, and that (2) exposure to their products "was a substantial factor in bringing about his injury." Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065, 1091 (La. 2009) (quoting Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc., 726 So. 2d 926, 948 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1998)); see also Vodanovich v. A.P. Green Indus., Inc., 869 So. 2d 930, 932 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2004) (indicating that plaintiff bears the burden of proof on both elements). Plaintiff does not oppose Viking's or Grefco's motions for summary judgment. Accordingly, he has not pointed to evidence creating an issue of material fact, nor has he provided the Court with any other reason for denying summary judgment to these defendants. See Little, 37 F.3d at 1075 ("Rule 56 `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.'" (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322)).

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Viking's motion for summary judgment,[7] and GRANTS Grefco's motion for summary judgment.[8] Plaintiff's claims against Viking and Grefco are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Because the cross-claims against Viking and Grefco have already been dismissed,[9] no claims against these entities remain. Viking and Grefco are hereby dismissed as defendants in this matter.

[1] R. Docs. 209 & 237.

[2] R. Docs. 210 & 238.

[3] Defendant and cross-claimant Huntington Ingalls, Inc. ("Avondale") initially opposed these defendants' motions, and sought a deferral of the motions until new plaintiffs could be substituted for the decedent. See R. Docs. 212 & 213. Plaintiffs were substituted on December 17, 2021. See R. Docs. 216 & 217. Viking and Grefco have now re-filed their motions, this time with no opposition from either Avondale or plaintiff.

[4] R. Doc. 237-1 at 4-5; R. Doc. 238-1 at 4.

[5] R. Doc. 237-1 at 5; R. Doc. 238-1 at 4.

[6] R. Doc. 237-1 at 5-6; R. Doc. 238-1 at 5.

[7] R. Docs. 209 & 237.

[8] R. Docs. 210 & 238.

[9] R. Docs. 262 & 263.

Sources

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