Paul Olds v. 3M Company

Filing 442

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATIONS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND STATEMENT OFUNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW signed by Judge Manuel L. Real. (pj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Denver ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 PAUL OLDS,
12
13

Case No. 2:12-cv-08539-R (MRWx)
Plaintiff,

v.

14 3M COMPANY a/k/a MINNESOTA
MINING & MANUFACTURING
15 COMPANY; et al.,
16

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
STATEMENT OF
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

17
18
19

Defendant United Technologies Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment

20 came on regularly for hearing on January 27, 2014, before the Honorable Manuel L. Real
21 in Department 8 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
22 All appearances are as reflected in the record.
23

Having read and considered all papers and evidence filed in support of and in

24 opposition to the Motion, and argument of counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
25 Motion is GRANTED and judgment shall be entered in favor of United Technologies
26 Corporation. The Court denies plaintiff’s request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
27 56(d) to defer ruling on the Motion for plaintiff to conduct additional discovery. The
28 Court finds that the further discovery plaintiff seeks is not essential to justify his
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
074908000772967792

1 opposition.
2

The Court’s ruling granting United Technologies Corporation’s Motion is based on

3 the findings of uncontroverted facts and conclusions of law set forth below, and as stated
4 on the record at the January 27, 2014 hearing on the Motion.
5
6

UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

7
8
9

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Denver ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Uncontroverted Fact:

Supporting Evidence:

Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Exhibit A to
1. Plaintiff claims he developed an
asbestos-related disease as a result Declaration of John K. Son (“Son
Decl.”).
of exposure to asbestos from
defendants’ products. As to United
Technologies Corporation
(“UTC”), plaintiff alleges exposure
to asbestos from Pratt & Whitney
aircraft engines, for which UTC is
liable, while serving as an aircraft
mechanic in the United States Air
Force from 1948 to 1968.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

2. Plaintiff asserts a “take-home”
exposure claim against UTC,
alleging that he was injured as a
result of secondary exposure to
asbestos fibers brought home on
the clothing of his mother, who
allegedly worked for Pratt &
Whitney in the 1940s.

Plaintiff’s Responses to Special
Interrogatories Propounded by
Defendant United Technologies
Corporation, Set One, Resp. No. 1,
Exhibit C to Son Decl.

24
25
26
27
28
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
074908000772967792

1
2
3
4
5

Uncontroverted Fact:

Supporting Evidence:

3. Plaintiff was deposed in January
2013 regarding his work around
aircraft in the U.S. Air Force, all of
which involved military aircraft
only.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p.
376:16-20, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

4. From 1953 to 1956, plaintiff
worked in the supply department
and maintained the tool crib at
Orlando Air Force Base.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p.
327:23-328:15, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

5. The only aircraft at that location
were the C-47 and C-45.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. I, p. 86:1316, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

6. He did not perform any work on
aircraft at this location.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p.
328:21-329:2; 322:12-324:12, Exhibit
B to Son Decl.

7. He did not know the brand name,
manufacturer, or supplier of any of
the parts he handled.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p.
324:18-25, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

6
7
8
9

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Denver ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
8. He could not recall any work that
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p. 329:4the others may have performed in
his presence, and he does not know 330:4, Exhibit B to Son Decl.
the material composition of any of
the components they worked with
other than metal.

27
28
3
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
074908000772967792

1
2
3
4

Uncontroverted Fact:

Supporting Evidence:

9. Plaintiff worked at Sidi Slimane in
Morocco in the supply department
from 1956 to 1957.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p. 331:9333:4, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

10. The only aircraft he ordered
supplies for was the F-100.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. I, p. 87:1688:8., Exhibit B to Son Decl.

11. Plaintiff did not perform work on
aircraft or aircraft components; nor
did he see others perform work on
aircraft at this location.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p. 333:121, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

12. Plaintiff was stationed at Eglin Air
Force Base from 1959 to 1963.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p.
336:20-337:10, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

13. The only aircraft at that location
was the B-52.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p.
337:18-24, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

14. Ninety percent of plaintiff’s time
was spent on the flight line in the
cockpit of the aircraft.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p. 340:319, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

15. He did not work on aircraft
engines, but he occasionally saw
others from a distance remove and
replace engines from the aircraft as
whole and complete units.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p.
340:21-341:22, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

5
6
7
8
9

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Denver ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
074908000772967792

1
2
3
4

Uncontroverted Fact:
16. Plaintiff was stationed at
Bergstrom Air Force base from
1963 to approximately 1965.

Supporting Evidence:
Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p.
343:19-346:25, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

5
6
7

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
17. The only aircraft at that location
were the B-52 and KC-135 aircraft. Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p.
344:18-20, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

8
9

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Denver ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco

10
11

18. Plaintiff worked on the quality
control and trim teams, which
mostly entailed visual inspections
of aircraft and paperwork.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p.
344:14-25, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

19. He did not perform hands-on work
to aircraft or aircraft components,
and he did not observe anyone else
perform work on aircraft or aircraft
components in his presence.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p.
344:14-345:22; Vol I, 101:17-24.
Exhibit B to Son Decl.

20. Plaintiff was stationed at March
Air Force Base from 1965 to 1967.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p.
346:17-347:2, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

21. The only aircraft at that location
was the B-52.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p. 347:810, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
074908000772967792

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Uncontroverted Fact:

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
22. Plaintiff worked on the quality
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p.
control team; he performed no
hands-on work to aircraft or aircraft 347:11-20, Exhibit B to Son Decl.
components, and he did not
observe anyone else perform work
on aircraft or aircraft components
in his presence.
23. Plaintiff was stationed in Guam for
six months.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p.
348:17-25, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

24. The only aircraft at that location
was the B-52.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p. 349:712, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

25. Plaintiff supervised other
mechanics but he could not recall
any specific tasks or duties that
they performed in his presence.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p.
349:13-351:1, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

26. Plaintiff was stationed in Thailand
from 1967 to 1968.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p. 351:313, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

27. The only aircraft at that location
was the Republic F-105.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p.
351:16-19, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

28. Plaintiff did not work on aircraft or
aircraft components, and he could
not recall any work that others
performed in his presence.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p.
351:20-354:1, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Denver ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Supporting Evidence:

28
6
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
074908000772967792

1
2
3
4
5

Uncontroverted Fact:

Supporting Evidence:

29. Plaintiff confirmed that he did not
know the maintenance history of
any of aircraft or aircraft
components that he ever
encountered at any of his jobsites.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. II, p.
376:21-378:1, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

30. Plaintiff testified that his mother
worked at Pratt & Whitney from
approximately 1943 to 1945, when
he was only a child.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. I, p. 213:28, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

31. Plaintiff’s mother operated a turret
lathe, which was a piece of
machinery that drilled holes into a
metal block.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. I, p. 24:2425:13; 216:2-5, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

32. Plaintiff admitted he did not know
whether his mother ever returned
from work with dust or debris on
her clothing.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. I, p. 24:1622; 215:6-15, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

33. Plaintiff had no reason to believe
that his mother ever worked with
anything other than metal.

Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. I, p. 216:69, Exhibit B to Son Decl.

6
7
8
9

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Denver ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

34. Plaintiff never visited his mother at Transcript of the Deposition of Paul
Olds (“Olds Depo.”), Vol. I, p. 214:10work, and everything he knew
about his mother’s job duties were 215:1, Exhibit B to Son Decl.
based on what she had told him.

26
27
28
7
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
074908000772967792

1

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.

2

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute. Fed. R.

3 Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a
4 reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty
5 Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986).
2.

6

All of plaintiff’s causes of action against UTC arising out of his alleged first-

7 hand and/or bystander exposure to asbestos fail for lack of causation because there is no
8 evidence that plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-containing parts or components for which
9 UTC is or may be liable. Furthermore, plaintiff’s declaration submitted in support of his

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Denver ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco

10 opposition to UTC’s motion is insufficient to allow a jury to reasonably find that
11 exposure to Pratt & Whitney aircraft engines was a substantial factor in causing
12 plaintiff’s illness.
3.

13

All of plaintiff’s causes of action against UTC arising out of his alleged

14 secondary (“take-home”) exposure to asbestos as a result of his mother’s work at Pratt &
15 Whitney fail for lack of causation because: (i) there is no evidence that plaintiff’s mother
16 was exposed to asbestos dust as a result of her alleged work at Pratt & Whitney, (ii) there
17 is no evidence that plaintiff’s mother carried asbestos dust home on her body or clothing
18 from Pratt & Whitney, and (ii) there is no evidence that plaintiff was secondarily exposed
19 to asbestos dust brought home on the body or clothing of his mother or that such
20 exposure was a substantial factor in causing his illness.
4.

21

For the foregoing reasons, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

22 56, plaintiff’s causes of action set forth in his Complaint should be, and hereby are,
23 dismissed and defendant United Technologies Corporation shall have judgment in its
24 favor.
25
26 DATED: _Feb. 14, 2014_
27

_________________________________
Honorable Manuel L. Real
United States District Court Judge

28
8
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
074908000772967792

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Cleveland ♦ Columbus ♦ Denver ♦ Los Angeles ♦ San Francisco

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
074908000772967792