Rasmussen et al v. Handi-Craft Company

Filing 11

ORDER and OPINION denying Defendant Handi-Craft's Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Maria Sullivan's claims. Signed on 07/23/2012 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Will-Fees, Eva)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
In re: BISPHENOL-A (BPA)
POLYCARBONATE PLASTIC
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
______________________________
MARIA SULLIVAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
HANDI-CRAFT COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MDL No. 1967
Master Case No. 08-1967-MD-W-ODS
_______________________________

Case No. 08-1000-CV-W-ODS

ORDER AND OPINION DENYING DEFENDANT HANDI-CRAFT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING MARIA SULLIVAN’S CLAIMS
Pending is Defendant Handi-Craft’s Motion for Summary Judgment with respect
to Maria Sullivan’s claims. The Court concludes there are disputed issues of material
fact, so the motion (Doc. # 850) is denied.
A detailed recitation of the Court’s view of the facts is unnecessary because it will
ultimately be the jury’s findings that are important. The facts, viewed in the light most
favorably to Sullivan, suggest that she bought various brands of sippy cups (including
sippy cups manufactured by Handi-Craft) but threw out all the sippy cups she had when
she learned of the controversy involving BPA. Sullivan’s children (like many children)
tended to lose the cups, so Sullivan frequently replaced her supply. Handi-Craft argues
that Sullivan cannot establish that any of the sippy cups she threw out were
manufactured by Handi-Craft, but this argument cannot be credited on summary
judgment.
The Record does not conclusively establish that Sullivan owned a Handi-Craft
sippy cup when she threw away all that she owned. It also does not conclusively
establish that she did not. For Handi-Craft to prevail, the Record must conclusively
demonstrate that Sullivan did not own and dispose of a Handi-Craft sippy cup.

At trial, Sullivan will bear the burden of proving she disposed of a Handi-Craft
sippy cup, but she does not need to prove this fact now. Handi-Craft implicitly
acknowledges this but argues that the Record conclusively demonstrates she will be
incapable of proving this fact at trial. The Court disagrees. The evidence is not strong,
but viewed in the light most favorable to Sullivan it is sufficient to defeat Handi-Craft’s
request for summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith
ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DATE: July 23, 2012

2