Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (N.D. Cal., July 6, 2020, as to Union Carbide)

Our plain-English summary of Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, July 6, 2020).

Debbie Viale and Amber Jacobs, the wife and daughter of Ronald Viale, sued several companies, including Union Carbide Corporation. They alleged Viale was exposed to asbestos-containing products, developed mesothelioma, and died in July 2018. Against Union Carbide they asserted negligence, strict liability, false representation and intentional tort. It was undisputed that Union Carbide sold asbestos to manufacturers beginning in 1963, and those manufacturers used it in various products. Union Carbide moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs had no evidence that Viale was exposed to any product made by a manufacturer to whom it had supplied asbestos. Union Carbide submitted the plaintiffs' interrogatory responses and deposition excerpts from people the plaintiffs had named as knowing about his exposure. The plaintiffs responded with over three hundred pages of interrogatory responses, testimony from this and other cases, and an expert report. The court found nothing in those materials that raised a triable issue about exposure to a product containing asbestos supplied by Union Carbide, and granted the motion.

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, Northern District of California
• Decided: July 6, 2020
• Docket: Case No. 19-cv-00038-MMC
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: California

Outcome. The court granted Union Carbide's motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Debbie Viale and Amber Jacobs because they offered no evidence that Ronald Viale was exposed to a product containing asbestos supplied by Union Carbide.

What the court held. A defendant that points to an absence of evidence of exposure to its asbestos-containing product is entitled to summary judgment when the plaintiffs identify no evidence creating a triable issue on that exposure.

Issues decided: Product Identification.

The people and their exposure

• Ronald Viale: mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Union Carbide Corporation (supplier)
• Air & Liquid Systems Corp

Other decisions in this case

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

• Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (March 11, 2019). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that Foster Wheeler and Air & Liquid Systems (successor to Buffalo Pumps) properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute.
• Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (May 21, 2019). The court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint over Foster Wheeler's objection, and directed plaintiffs to file it by May 31, 2019.
• Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (July 3, 2019). The court denied the plaintiffs' renewed motion to remand, keeping the case in federal court against Foster Wheeler, Buffalo Pumps (Air & Liquid Systems), Calaveras, GE and the other defendants.
• Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (July 6, 2020). The district court granted Foster Wheeler LLC's motion for summary judgment against the plaintiffs, the widow and daughter of Ronald Viale, because they lacked admissible evidence that Viale was exposed to a Foster Wheeler product.
• Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (July 7, 2020). The court granted Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Debbie Viale and Amber Jacobs because they lacked admissible evidence that Ronald Viale was exposed to a Foster Wheeler boiler.
• Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (July 7, 2020). The court granted SPX Cooling Technologies' motion for summary judgment against the plaintiffs (the wife and daughter of Ronald Viale) because they lacked evidence that Viale was exposed to asbestos from a Marley cooling tower.
• Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (July 14, 2020). The court granted Exxon Mobil's motion for summary judgment against the wife and daughter of Ronald Viale, finding they lacked evidence that Exxon was negligent as a premises owner or hirer of contractors at the Benicia Refinery.

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.

DEBBIE L. VIALE, etal., Plaintiffs,

v.

AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP, etal., Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-00038-MMC.

July 6, 2020.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; VACATING HEARING

Re: Doc. No. 258

MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.

Before the Court is defendant Union Carbide Corporation's ("Union Carbide") Motion for Summary Judgment, filed May 28, 2020. Plaintiffs Debbie Viale and Amber Jacobs have filed opposition, to which Union Carbide has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion,[1] the Court deems the matter suitable for decision on the parties' respective written submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for July 10, 2020, and rules as follows. In the operative complaint, the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), plaintiffs allege Ronald Viale ("Viale") "used, handled, or was otherwise exposed to asbestos and asbestos containing products provided by or manufactured by the defendants," that he "contracted the terminal cancer, mesothelioma" as a result of such exposure, and that, in July 2018, he died. (See SAC, Introduction at 3:3-7, ¶ V.) Based on said allegations, plaintiffs, who are, respectively, the decedent's wife and daughter, assert against Union Carbide the following four Causes of Action: "Negligence," "Strict Liability," "False Representation," and "Intentional Tort."

In its motion, Union Carbide argues plaintiffs lack evidence to establish Viale was exposed to any asbestos-containing product made by a manufacturer to whom Union Carbide had supplied asbestos.[2] As set forth below, the Court agrees. A moving party who does not have the "ultimate burden of persuasion at trial" may meet its initial burden to show entitlement to summary judgment by "show[ing] that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element of its claim or defense to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial." See Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). Put another way, the movant may meet its initial burden "by showing — that is, pointing out to the district court — that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." See id. at 1105 (internal quotation and citation omitted).

Here, Union Carbide has submitted plaintiffs' responses to interrogatories as well as excerpts from the depositions of all individuals identified by plaintiffs as persons having knowledge of Viale's exposure to products containing asbestos supplied by Union Carbide. (See Haran Decl. Ex. C at 4:6-8:13, Ex. F at 61:6-11, 114:15-115:6, Ex. G at 39:25-40:8, 49:12-17, Ex. H at 84:5-85:13, 86:2-6, Ex. I at 54:14-56:21, 58:2-59:24, 61:5-8, 63:13-64:1, Ex. J at 265:19-269:7, Ex. K at 205:10-208:8, Ex. L at 180:4-9, 333:2-6, Ex. M at 172.) Having reviewed that evidence, the Court finds Union Carbide has met its initial burden.

Where, as here, the party moving for summary judgment has met its initial burden to "demonstrate the absence of a material fact," see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986), the nonmoving party, to defeat the motion, must, by affidavits or other evidence, "designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial," see id. at 324 (internal quotation and citation omitted). In that regard, plaintiffs have offered over three hundred pages of documents comprising responses to interrogatories served in other cases, excerpts from deposition testimony given in this and other cases, excerpts from trial testimony given in an additional case, and an expert report served in this case. (See Belantis Decl. Exs. A-O.) In their opposition, however, plaintiffs fail to identify, nor has the Court otherwise located, anything in the materials submitted

sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to Viale's alleged exposure to a product containing asbestos supplied by Union Carbide.

Accordingly, Union Carbide's motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[1] Contrary to plaintiffs' argument, Union Carbide's motion was not filed in violation of this Court's Standing Orders. [2] It is undisputed that Union Carbide, beginning in 1963, sold asbestos to manufacturers, which, in turn, incorporated it into "various products." (See Haran Decl. Ex. O ¶ 4; Belantis Decl. Ex. C at 3:27 - 4:1.)

Sources

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