Paul Olds v. 3M Company

Filing 311

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUPPORTING JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION signed by Judge Manuel L. Real. (pj)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 PAUL OLDS, Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 16 Case No. 2:12-cv-08539-R-MRW v. 3M COMPANY a/k/a MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al., Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUPPORTING [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION UNCONTROVERTED FACTS 1) Plaintiff Paul Olds (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Parker Hannifin Corporation (“Parker”) and other defendants for personal injury, stemming from plaintiff’s alleged exposure to asbestos during his service in the United States Air Force. 23 Evidence: Plaintiff’s Complaint, at p. 47; Plaintiff’s Response to 24 General Order No. 13 Interrogatories, Response No. 26 [Exhibits 25 “1” and “5” respectively to the Declaration of Mathew Groseclose 26 submitted in support of Parker’s Motion for Summary Judgment 27 (“Motion”)]. 28 18038077v.1 2) 1 A reasonable jury could not find that any product manufactured or 2 supplied by Parker was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s alleged injury, as 3 there was an absence of evidence that plaintiff worked with or around any Parker 4 product, or otherwise inhaled asbestos-containing dust from any Parker product. 5 Evidence: Deposition of Paul Olds, taken on January 16, 2013, at 6 pp. 364:1-11, 371:3-12, and 379:1-381:10; Plaintiff’s Initial 7 Disclosures, p. 1; Plaintiff’s First Amended Initial Disclosures, p. 1; 8 Response to Parker’s Interrogatories, Response No. 9 (Exhibits “7,” 9 “2,” and “3” and “6” respectively to the Declaration of Mathew 10 Groseclose submitted in support of Parker’s Motion). 3) 11 12 Plaintiff did not show, by deposition testimony or affidavit, that he possessed, or could reasonably obtain, evidence sufficient to justify his opposition. 13 Evidence: Deposition of Paul Olds, taken on January 16, 2013, at 14 pp. 364:1-11, 371:3-12, and 379:1-381:10; Declaration of Robert 15 Green ¶¶ 14-15. Based on the foregoing Uncontroverted Facts, the Court now makes its 16 17 Conclusions of Law. 18 A fundamental element of any claim for negligence or products liability is 19 causation. Setliff v. E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Company, 32 Cal. App. 4th 1525, 20 1533 (1988). 21 The threshold issue in establishing causation between a manufacturer’s 22 product and an alleged work place injury is exposure. Garcia v. Joseph Vince Co., 23 84 Cal. App. 3d 868, 874 (1978). An injured party must establish that he or she was actually exposed to a 24 25 defendant’s product in order to maintain an action against that party. Garcia v. 26 Joseph Vince Co., 84 Cal. App. 3d 868, 874 (1978); Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, 27 Inc., 16 Cal. 4th 953, 976 (1997). 28 /// 2 1 Once exposure is established, an injured party must prove that the exposure 2 was a substantial factor in producing the alleged injury. Lineaweaver v. Plant 3 Insulation Company, 31 Cal. App. 4th 1409, 1426-1427 (1995). 4 Because a reasonable jury cannot find that Parker manufactured, supplied or 5 distributed an asbestos-containing product to which plaintiff was exposed, plaintiff 6 cannot prove the fundamental element of causation for all of his claims, and Parker 7 is therefore entitled to summary judgment in its favor. Harris v. Owens-Corning 8 Fiberglas Corp., 102 F.3d 1429, 1432 (7th Cir. 1996); Benshoof v. National 9 Gypsum Co., 978 F.2d 475, 477 (9th Cir. 1992). 10 Because plaintiff did not show, by deposition testimony or affidavit, that he 11 possessed, or could reasonably obtain, evidence sufficient to justify his opposition, 12 a continuance of the Motion is not warranted. 13 14 Judgment shall be entered in favor of Parker in accordance with these Conclusions of Law. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 17 18 19 Dated: Oct. 24, 2013 HON. MANUEL REAL 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?