Haynes v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al
Filing
48
ORDER AND REASONS granting 46 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 05/31/2023. (cs)
Case 2:17-cv-04350-SSV-JVM Document 48 Filed 05/31/23 Page 1 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALMETIS HAYNES
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 17-4350
B.P. EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.
SECTION “R” (1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendants BP Exploration & Production,
Inc., BP America Production Company, and BP p.l.c.’s (collectively, the
“BP parties”) unopposed motion for summary judgment. 1 For the
following reasons, the Court grants the motion, and dismisses
plaintiff’s complaint.
I.
BACKGROUND
This case arises from plaintiff’s alleged exposure to toxic
chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico by virtue of his presence in the environment in Moss Point,
1
R. Doc. 46. The remaining defendants, Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc., Transocean Deepwater, Inc., Transocean
Holdings, LLC, and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling,
Inc. join the BP parties’ motion for summary judgment. R. Doc.
46-1 at 1 n.1.
Case 2:17-cv-04350-SSV-JVM Document 48 Filed 05/31/23 Page 2 of 9
Mississippi beginning in April of 2010.2 Plaintiff contends that since
the alleged exposure, he has experienced, among other things:
dizziness, headaches, dysuria, nocturia, hematuria, eye burning, ocular
hypertension, eye irritation, sinus pain, nasal congestion, throat
irritation, skin blistering, skin dryness/flaking, skin inflammation,
joint pain, and “tingling sensations.” 3
Plaintiff’s case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation
(“MDL”) pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. His case was severed
from the MDL as one of the “B3” cases for plaintiffs who either opted
out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement.4 Plaintiff opted out of the
settlement.5 After plaintiff’s case was severed, it was reallocated to this
Court.
On March 11, 2022, this Court issued a scheduling order that
established, among other deadlines, that plaintiff’s expert disclosures
had to be “obtained and delivered” to defense counsel by no later than
2
3
4
5
R. Doc. 1-1 at 5.
R. Doc. 1-1 at 5; R. Doc. 46-2 at 1-2.
Id. at 6; R. Doc. 1-2 at 6; In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig “Deepwater
Horizon” in the Gulf of Mex., on Apr. 20, 2010, No. MDL 2179,
2021 WL 6053613, at *2, 12 & n.12 (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2021).
R. Doc. 1-1 at 2.
2
Case 2:17-cv-04350-SSV-JVM Document 48 Filed 05/31/23 Page 3 of 9
April 21, 2023.6
Defendants now move for summary judgment,
arguing that because plaintiff has not identified any expert testimony,
he is unable to carry his burden on causation.7 Plaintiff does not
oppose defendants’ motion. The Court considers the motion below.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is warranted when “the movant shows that
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); see also
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Little v. Liquid
Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (per curiam).
“When assessing whether a dispute to any material fact exists, [the
Court] consider[s] all of the evidence in the record but refrain[s] from
making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.” Delta &
Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins., 530 F.3d 395, 398-99
(5th Cir. 2008). All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the
nonmoving party, but “unsupported allegations or affidavits setting
forth ‘ultimate or conclusory facts and conclusions of law’ are
6
7
R. Doc. 42 at 1.
R. Doc. 44-1 at 1.
3
Case 2:17-cv-04350-SSV-JVM Document 48 Filed 05/31/23 Page 4 of 9
insufficient to either support or defeat a motion for summary
judgment.” Galindo v. Precision Am. Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th
Cir. 1985) (quoting 10A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 2738 (2d ed. 1983)); see also Little,
37 F.3d at 1075. “No genuine dispute of fact exists if the record taken
as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the
nonmoving party.” EEOC v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 481 (5th Cir.
2014).
If the dispositive issue is one on which the moving party will bear
the burden of proof at trial, the moving party “must come forward with
evidence which would ‘entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence
went uncontroverted at trial.’” Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939
F.2d 1257, 1264-65 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting Golden Rule Ins. v. Lease,
755 F. Supp. 948, 951 (D. Colo. 1991)). “[T]he nonmoving party can
defeat the motion” by either countering with evidence sufficient to
demonstrate the “existence of a genuine dispute of material fact,” or by
“showing that the moving party’s evidence is so sheer that it may not
persuade the reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in favor of the
moving party.” Id. at 1265.
4
Case 2:17-cv-04350-SSV-JVM Document 48 Filed 05/31/23 Page 5 of 9
If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonmoving party will
bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may satisfy its
burden by pointing out that the evidence in the record is insufficient
with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim.
See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving
party, who must, by submitting or referring to evidence, set out specific
facts showing that a genuine issue exists.
See id. at 324.
The
nonmovant may not rest upon the pleadings, but must identify specific
facts that establish a genuine issue for resolution. See, e.g., id.; Little,
37 F.3d at 1075 (“Rule 56 ‘mandates the entry of summary judgment,
after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who
fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an
element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear
the burden of proof at trial.’” (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322)).
In the Fifth Circuit, a district court may not grant a “default”
summary judgment on the ground that it is unopposed. Morgan v.
Fed. Express Corp., 114 F. Supp. 3d 434, 437 (S.D. Tex. 2015)
(collecting cases). Even in the context of unopposed motions for
summary judgment, the movant must still show that there is no
genuine issue of material fact, and that it is entitled to summary
5
Case 2:17-cv-04350-SSV-JVM Document 48 Filed 05/31/23 Page 6 of 9
judgment as a matter of law. Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 50 F.3d
360, 363 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995). When a motion for summary judgment is
unopposed, a court may accept the movant’s evidence as undisputed.
Morgan, 114 F. Supp. 3d at 437 (quoting UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am. v.
Long, 227 F. Supp. 2d 609 (N.D. Tex. 2002)). Nevertheless, if the
moving party fails to meet its burden, the Court must deny its motion
for summary judgment. Hetzel, 50 F.3d at 362 n.3.
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence,
negligence per se, and gross negligence against the defendants as a
result of the oil spill. 8 Defendants contend that plaintiff cannot prove
that exposure to oil or dispersants was the legal cause of his alleged
injuries, and thus that he cannot prove a necessary element of his
claims against defendants.9
“Under the general maritime law, a party’s negligence is
actionable only if it is a legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.”
Donaghey v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., 974 F.2d 646, 649 (5th
8
9
R. Doc. 28 ¶¶ 19-49.
R. Doc. 46-1 at 4-6.
6
Case 2:17-cv-04350-SSV-JVM Document 48 Filed 05/31/23 Page 7 of 9
Cir. 1992). “Legal cause” is more than but-for causation; rather, the
negligence “must be a ‘substantial factor’ in the injury.” Id. To prevail
in a toxic tort case, a plaintiff must show both general causation and
specific causation. See Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine, Inc., 482 F.3d
347, 351-52 (5th Cir. 2007) (in toxic tort cases, “the district court must
determine whether there is general causation,” and if so, “the district
court must determine whether there is admissible specific-causation
evidence”). “General causation is whether a substance is capable of
causing a particular injury or condition in the general population,
while specific causation is whether a substance caused a particular
individual’s injury.” Seaman v. Seacor Marine LLC, 326 F. App’x 721,
724 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Knight, 482 F.3d at 351).
Expert testimony is required to establish general causation in
toxic-tort cases like this one. See McGill v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., 830
F. App’x 430, 433-34 (5th Cir. 2020) (affirming summary judgment
where plaintiff lacked admissible expert testimony on general
causation); see also Macon v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., No. 17-3548, 2022
WL 1811135, at *7 (E.D. La. June 2, 2022) (dismissing plaintiff’s claims
“[b]ecause expert testimony is required on [general causation]”).
“Scientific knowledge of the harmful level of exposure to a chemical,
7
Case 2:17-cv-04350-SSV-JVM Document 48 Filed 05/31/23 Page 8 of 9
plus knowledge that the plaintiff was exposed to such quantities, are
minimal facts necessary to sustain the plaintiffs’ burden.” Allen v. Pa.
Eng’g Corp., 102 F.3d 194, 199 (5th Cir. 1996).
Courts have also required expert testimony as to specific
causation “when the symptoms are not within the common knowledge
of laypersons and not classified as transient or temporary.” See Street
v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., No. CV 17-3619, 2022 WL 1811144, at *3 (E.D.
La. June 2, 2022); see also Troxler v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 174207, 2022 WL 1081193, at *2 (E.D. La. Apr. 11, 2022) (holding that
“the causal connection between exposure to oil or dispersants and
[chemical
pneumonitis,
gastrointestinal
problems,
breathing
difficulties, and memory loss] is not within the common knowledge of
a layperson” and thus requires expert testimony); Stephens v. BP Expl.
& Prod. Inc., No. 17-4294, 2022 WL 1642136, at *4 (E.D. La. May 24,
2022) (“[W]ithout an expert opinion on specific causation, Plaintiff
cannot meet her burden of proof on her claims of sinusitis, upper
respiratory infection, abdominal cramps and pain, mood disorder, and
insomnia.”).
Plaintiff has not disclosed any experts on either general or
specific causation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2). As he is unable to
8
Case 2:17-cv-04350-SSV-JVM Document 48 Filed 05/31/23 Page 9 of 9
create an issue of material fact on causation, the Court grants summary
judgment. See Williams v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 18-9753, 2019
WL 6615504, at *11 (E.D. La. Dec. 5, 2019) (“When a plaintiff has no
expert testimony to prove his medical diagnosis or causation at trial,
the plaintiff’s suit may be dismissed at the summary judgment stage.”).
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion for summary
judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____
31st day of May, 2023.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
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?