Jepsen v. Lornamead, Inc.
Filing
24
ORDER: Defendant's Motion for Summary Final Judgment 22 is GRANTED. The clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. All pending motions are denied as moot. The clerk is directed to close this file. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 11/6/2013. (LN)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
PHILIP JEPSEN, pro se,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 8:12-cv-1811-T-30TGW
LORNAMEAD, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Defendant's Motion for Final
Summary Judgment (Dkt. #22) and Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Motion (Dkt.
#23). Plaintiff, Philip Jepsen, initiated this action pro se for negligence and “toxic tort
product liability” based on his use of Defendant’s hairspray product. Plaintiff was
hospitalized for atrial fibrillation, and he contributes the condition to his ongoing use of
the hairspray. Defendant Lornamead, Inc. moves for summary judgment on the basis that
Plaintiff has produced no medical or scientific evidence to support his allegations of
negligence or products liability.
It is well established that if a Plaintiff’s cause of action relies on medical or
scientific evidence, the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or
evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable. See generally Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Plaintiff admitted in his deposition that
he does not have any medical evidence to support his allegations of negligence or product
liability. In his Response, Plaintiff claims that he will produce scientific evidence at trial,
but has delayed doing the research and obtaining the necessary experts due to the
expense. His only evidence thus far is based on his own internet research of scientific
studies regarding the negative effects of cyclohexylamine, one of the listed ingredients in
the hairspray.
Motions for summary judgment should only be granted when the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once a party properly
makes a summary judgment motion by demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact, whether or not accompanied by affidavits, the nonmoving party must go
beyond the pleadings through the use of affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories
and admissions on file, and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.
It is undisputed that Plaintiff has produced no admissible scientific or medical
evidence to support his allegations against the Defendant; therefore summary judgment is
appropriate at this time.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Final Judgment (Dkt. #22) is
GRANTED.
2
2.
The clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against
Plaintiff.
3.
All pending motions are denied as moot. The clerk is directed to close this
file.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 6th day of November, 2013.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Odd\2012\12-cv-1811 msj.docx
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?