Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (E.D. La., Apr. 8, 2022, as to Huntington Ingalls)

Our plain-English summary of Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, April 8, 2022).

Robert Stephen Sentilles was diagnosed with mesothelioma in October 2020 and sued several defendants for negligence and strict liability. He alleged asbestos exposure from the 1950s to the 1980s. He claimed his father and brothers brought asbestos dust home from Avondale, that he was exposed directly while working at Avondale from 1969 to 1972, and that he was exposed at Pelnor from 1974 to 1983. Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) moved for summary judgment on three narrow points: his employment there after June 23, 1969, when he moved to an office job without asbestos exposure; the take-home claim based on his brother Clayton Jr., who began work at Avondale after Sentilles left the family home; and the take-home claim based on his father, who worked in an office. Sentilles, though represented by counsel, filed no opposition. The court granted all three motions because they were unopposed and appeared to have merit, and dismissed those claims with prejudice. It treated the failure to oppose as an admission of the facts.

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: April 8, 2022
• Docket: Civil Action No. 21-958
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The court granted Avondale's unopposed motions for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice Sentilles's claims about his employment there after June 23, 1969, and his secondary-exposure claims tied to his father and brother.

What the court held. A plaintiff who fails to oppose a summary judgment motion is treated as having admitted the facts it asserts, and summary judgment follows where the motion appears to have merit and he cannot show an essential element of his claim.

Issues decided: Premises Owner Liability, Trial Procedure and Discovery, Take-Home Exposure.

The people and their exposure

• Robert Stephen Sentilles: mesothelioma

The defendants

• Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (Avondale) (employer)

Other decisions in this case

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

• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (December 20, 2021). The court denied defendant Pelnor's motion for partial summary judgment, so plaintiff Sentilles may pursue his claims about exposure at Pelnor on or after September 1, 1975, and the court did not categorically exclude evidence of post-1975 exposure.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (April 8, 2022). The court granted the unopposed summary judgment motions of Union Carbide, Amchem, Zurich (as alleged insurer of Marquette) and John Crane, and dismissed Sentilles's and Huntington Ingalls (Avondale)'s claims against them with prejudice.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (April 22, 2022). The court granted Avondale's motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice Sentilles's state-law tort claims against Avondale, both occupational and take-home, as preempted by the LHWCA's exclusivity provision.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (April 25, 2022). The court granted Avondale's (Huntington Ingalls') summary judgment motion and dismissed Sentilles's state-law tort claims against it with prejudice, ruling that the LHWCA's exclusivity provision preempts them.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (June 21, 2022). The court granted Pelnor's Rule 54(b) motion, entering partial final judgment on the order dismissing plaintiff Sentilles's claims against Avondale so that the dismissal can be appealed immediately.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (October 3, 2024). The court granted Avondale's Rule 12(c) motion dismissing with prejudice Sentilles's reasserted claims about post-June 1969 Avondale work and his father's and brother's Avondale employment, denied his motion for reconsideration, and barred him from using Pelnor's experts Pierce and Roggli at trial.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (October 4, 2024). The court denied plaintiff Sentilles's motion in limine to exclude Avondale's expert Christopher Herfel, finding him qualified and his opinions relevant and reliable.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (January 20, 2025). The court granted Pelnor's motion for partial summary judgment and denied First State Insurance Company's cross-motion, holding that First State must indemnify Pelnor for all of its reasonable defense attorney's fees and costs.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (February 10, 2025). The court ruled on Avondale's objections to plaintiff Sentilles's trial exhibits: it overruled some, sustained others (including expert reports and several publications as hearsay), deferred many to trial, and dismissed several as moot.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (March 30, 2025). The magistrate judge recommended granting in part and denying in part Pelnor's motion: Pelnor may supplement its crossclaim with a bad faith claim against First State for events on or after January 20, 2025, but not for events between September 4, 2024 and January 20, 2025.

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.

ROBERT STEPHEN SENTILLES,

v.

HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INC., SECTION M (3), etal.

Civil Action No. 21-958.

April 8, 2022.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

ORDER & REASONS

BARRY W. ASHE, District Judge.

Before the Court are motions for summary judgment filed by defendant Huntington Ingalls, Inc. ("Avondale") regarding certain aspects of plaintiff's claims against it.[1] Specifically, Avondale seeks summary judgment on plaintiff's claim related to his employment at its facility after June 23, 1969, because on June 24, 1969, plaintiff Robert Stephen Sentilles moved to an office job where he was not exposed to asbestos.[2] Avondale also moves for summary judgment on Sentilles's secondary-exposure claim related to the employment of Sentilles's brother, Clayton Sentilles, Jr. ("Clayton Jr."), at Avondale because Sentilles moved out of the family home before Clayton Jr. began working at Avondale.[3] Further, Avondale also moves for summary judgment on Sentilles's secondary-exposure claim related to his father's employment at Avondale because his father worked in an office and was not exposed to asbestos at Avondale.[4] The motions were set for submission on April 7, 2022. 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 March 30, 2022. Sentilles, who is represented by counsel, did not file an opposition to any of these motions.

Accordingly, because the motions are unopposed and appear to have merit,[5]

IT IS ORDERED that these motions for summary judgment filed by Avondale (R. Docs. 176; 177; 178) are GRANTED, and

Sentilles's claims against Avondale related to his employment there after June 23, 1969, and his secondary-exposure claims related to the employment of his father and brother (Clayton Jr.) at Avondale are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

[1] R. Docs. 176; 177; 178.

[2] R. Doc. 176-1.

[3] R. Doc. 177-1.

[4] R. Doc. 178-1.

[5] This case involves claims for asbestos exposure. On October 27, 2020, Sentilles was diagnosed with mesothelioma. R. Doc. 60 at 2-3. Sen tilles filed this suit asserting negligence and strict liability claims against several defendants, alleging that his disease was caused by exposure to asbestos that occurred from the 1950s to the 1980s. Id. at 1-20. More specifically, Sentilles alleges that from the 1950s to the 1970s, his father worked at Avondale where he encountered asbestos dust and brought it home on his person and clothing, which resulted in Sentilles's exposure. Id. at 4. Similarly, Sentilles alleges that from 1968 through approximately 1974, he was secondarily exposed to asbestos dust brought home by his brothers who were employed at Avondale. Id. at 5. Further, Sentilles alleges that he was personally exposed to asbestos dust when he worked at Avondale from 1969 to 1972. Id. at 6. Finally, Sentilles alleges that he was exposed to asbestos when he worked at Pelnor from July 31, 1974, through 1983. Id. By failing to oppose Avondale's three motions for summary judgment regarding certain of these exposures, Sentilles has admitted that he was not personally exposed to asbestos at Avondale after June 23, 1969, nor was he secondarily exposed to asbestos from his father's or Clayton Jr.'s employment at Avondale. 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