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)
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?