Millet, Jr. v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated
Filing
120
ORDER & REASONS that Foster Wheeler's 102 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that General Electric's 103 Motion for Summary Judgment and CBS Corporation's 104 Motion for Summary Judgment are DENIED. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 10/7/14. (dno)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JUNIUS MILLET, JR.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 13-0934
HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED, ET AL.
SECTION "L" (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are three motions for summary judgment from third-party defendants
Foster Wheeler LLC, (Rec. Doc. 102); General Electric Company, (Rec. Doc. 103); and CBS
Corporation, (Rec. Doc. 104). Having considered the parties' memoranda and the applicable law,
the Court now issues this order.
I.
BACKGROUND
This diversity action arises out of alleged asbestos exposure resulting in mesothelioma.
Plaintiff Junius Millet was employed by Avondale Shipyards, Inc. in Bridge City, Louisiana,
from approximately 1968 to 1972, where he worked as a sheet metal helper. He alleges that
during his employment there he was exposed to asbestos-containing products and dust, which
caused asbestos-related mesothelioma. Mr. Millet allegedly worked on a number of vessels in
proximity to asbestos-containing insulation. Mr. Millet filed suit against Defendant Huntington
Ingalls, Inc., as successor in interest to Avondale Shipyards, alleging negligence. Huntington
thereafter filed third-party actions against various other entities, including Foster Wheeler,
General Electric, and CBS.
II.
PRESENT MOTIONS
Foster Wheeler, General Electric, and CBS now move for summary judgment against the
claims of third-party plaintiff Huntington. (Rec. Docs. 102, 103, 104). Movants argue that Mr.
Millet cannot show that his exposure of the each movant’s product, respectively, was a
substantial cause of mesothelioma. Specifically, movants argue that Mr. Millet admitted in his
deposition that he did not work around boilers, turbines, or wallboard. Movants further argue that
no other evidence demonstrates that Mr. Millet worked in proximity to those products.
Therefore, they argue, Mr. Millet cannot prove legal causation to establish the requisite frequent,
regular exposure to the products of their respective companies.
Huntington replies in opposition to the motions of General Electric and CBS, while the
motion of Foster Wheeler is unopposed. (Rec. Docs. 105, 106). Huntington argues that a genuine
issue of material fact exists as to the motions of General Electric and CBS. Specifically,
Huntington argues that the summary judgment motions are premature: the discovery deadline is
not until March 2015. Moreover, Huntington argues that Mr. Millet worked on a number of
vessels at the shipyard, and a number of those vessels contained products of General Electric and
CBS. Thus, discovery could yield evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to find legal causation.
By leave of Court, movants reply. (Rec. Doc. 111). Movants argue that Huntington
cannot ignore Mr. Millet’s own deposition testimony that he never worked around turbines. This
evidence, movants argue, supports summary judgment.
III.
LAW & ANALYSIS
Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party can show "there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R.
CIV. P. 56(a). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), the moving party bears the initial
burden of "informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions
2
of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact."
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). When the moving party has met its Rule
56(c) burden, the non-moving party cannot survive a motion for summary judgment by resting
on the mere allegations of its pleadings. See Prejean v. Foster, 227 F.3d 504, 508 (5th Cir.
2000). "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be
insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff."
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 253 (1986). Furthermore, "[t]he non-movant
cannot avoid summary judgment . . . by merely making 'conclusory allegations' or
'unsubstantiated assertions.'" Calbillo v. Cavender Oldsmobile, Inc., 288 F.3d 721, 725 (5th Cir.
2002) (quoting Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)). In deciding a
summary judgment motion, the court reviews the facts drawing all reasonable inferences in the
light most favorable to the non-movant. Id. at 255.
The instant opposed summary judgment motions indeed are premature. Notably, the
discovery deadline here is not until March 2015. Although Mr. Millet’s deposition has been
taken, the evidence, as it presently stands, is not sufficient for a finding that no genuine issue of
material fact exists as to the liability of General Electric and CBS. Because more discovery could
substantiate the arguments and evidence emphasized by Huntington, summary judgment is not
appropriate at this time for the General Electric and CBS motions. The Court will thus deny
those motions with the understanding that the parties may re-urge summary judgment motions at
a more appropriate time later in the litigation.
The Court now turns to Foster Wheeler’s motion. As no party has put forth any evidence,
or made any argument, as to why Foster Wheeler’s motion for summary judgment should not be
granted as unopposed, summary judgment is appropriate for the motion.
3
IV.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Foster Wheeler’s motion for summary
judgment, (Rec. Doc. 102), is GRANTED as unopposed;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that General Electric and CBS Corporation’s motions for
summary judgment, (Rec. Docs. 103, 104), are DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 7th day of October, 2014.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?