Michel v. Ford Motor Company, et al, No. 2:2018cv04738 - Document 125 (E.D. La. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS: For the foregoing reasons, defendants' 70 motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 1/7/2019. (mmv)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Michel v. Ford Motor Company, et al Doc. 125 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VICTOR MICHEL CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 18-4738 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL. SECTION “R” (4) ORD ER AN D REASON S Before the Court is defendants Cum m ins Inc.’s and Ford Motor Com pany’s m otion for sum m ary judgm ent. 1 Because disputed issues of m aterial fact exist as to whether Victor Michel was exposed to asbestos from defendants’ products, the Court denies the m otion. I. BACKGROU N D This case arises out of Victor Michel’s asbestos exposure during his work as a m echanic and generator service technician. 2 Michel contracted peritoneal m esotheliom a after a career that included perform ing work as a m echanic on engines and brakes. 3 He filed this action in state court on J uly 28, 20 17, claim ing, inter alia, that defendants failed to warn him of the 1 2 3 R. Doc. 70 . R. Doc. 1 at 2; R. Doc. 70 -2 at 1 ¶ 1. R. Doc. 70 -2 at 1 ¶ 1. Dockets.Justia.com hazards of their products, failed to adopt proper safety policies and procedures, failed to provide Michel with a safe work environm ent, and failed to follow applicable governm ental regulations regulating exposure to asbestos. 4 The com plaint seeks dam ages for past, present, and future m edical expenses, lost earnings, pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical im pairm ent, disfigurement, loss of quality of life, costs, attorneys fees, and interest. 5 Defendants rem oved the case to federal court on May 8, 20 18. 6 On J une 12, 20 18, Michel died. 7 The Court substituted his survivors as plaintiffs on J uly 10 , 20 18. 8 Defendants have now filed a m otion for sum m ary judgm ent on the basis that plaintiffs cannot show that their products substantially contributed to Michel’s m esotheliom a. 9 Plaintiffs oppose the m otion. 10 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R. Doc. 1-2 at 13-14 ¶ 14. Id. at 17-18 ¶ 21. R. Doc. 1. R. Doc. 21. Id. R. Doc. 70 . R. Doc. 77. 2 II. LEGAL STAN D ARD Sum m ary judgment is warranted when “the m ovant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any m aterial fact and the m ovant is entitled to judgm ent as a m atter 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 10 69, 10 75 (5th Cir. 1994). When assessing whether a dispute as to any m aterial fact exists, the Court considers “all of the evidence in the record but refrain[s] from m aking credibility determ inations or weighing the evidence.” Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationw ide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398-99 (5th Cir. 20 0 8). All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonm oving party, but “unsupported allegations or affidavits setting forth ‘ultim ate or conclusory facts and conclusions of law’ are insufficient to either support or defeat a m otion for sum m ary judgment.” Galindo v. Precision Am . Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Little, 37 F.3d at 10 75. A dispute about a m aterial fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable [factfinder] could return a verdict for the nonm oving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby , Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). If the dispositive issue is one on which the m oving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the m oving party “m ust come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went 3 uncontroverted at trial.” Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally ’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1264-65 (5th Cir. 1991). The nonm oving party can then defeat the m otion by either countering with evidence sufficient to dem onstrate the existence of a genuine dispute of m aterial fact, or “showing that the m oving party’s evidence is so sheer that it m ay not persuade the reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in favor of the m oving party.” Id. at 1265. If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonm oving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the m oving party m ay satisfy its burden by m erely pointing out that the evidence in the record is insufficient with respect to an essential elem ent of the nonm oving party’s claim . See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. The burden then shifts to the nonm oving party, who m ust, by subm itting or referring to evidence, set out specific facts showing that a genuine issue exists. See id. at 324. The nonm ovant m ay not rest upon the pleadings, but m ust identify specific facts that establish a genuine issue for trial. See, e.g., id.; Little, 37 F.3d at 10 75 (“Rule 56 m andates the entry of sum m ary judgment, after adequate tim e for discovery and upon m otion, against a party who fails to m ake a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an elem ent 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). 4 III. D ISCU SSION Defendants argue jointly that they are entitled to sum m ary judgm ent because plaintiffs cannot m eet their burden of proving that their products caused Michel’s mesotheliom a if the Court grants defendants’ m otions in lim ine seeking to exclude plaintiffs’ experts Dr. Brody, Dr. Castlem an, Dr. Staggs, Dr. Finkelstein, and Mr. Depasquale. 11 But, as explained in the order denying the m otions against Dr. Staggs, Dr. Finkelstein, and Depasquale, the Court finds their causation opinions adm issible. 12 These experts will testify that the asbestos in defendants’ products can cause peritoneal m esothelioma generally, and that Michel’s disease was caused by his exposure to defendants’ products. 13 In addition, the Court’s review of the record in connection with the m otions in lim ine reveals that Michel’s em ploym ent history, medical history, and his testim ony regarding the types of tasks he perform ed at work provide a reliable factual basis for the expert opinions and 11 R. Doc. 70 -1 at 3; R. Doc. 95 at 1-2. Defendants also argue that plaintiffs’ experts im properly relied on certain studies in their causation opinions. See R. Doc. 70 -1 at 19-21. In addition to failing to specify exactly which opinions or sources they find unreliable, defendants’ arguments are inappropriate for a sum m ary judgm ent m otion, in which the Court does not evaluate the credibility of witness opinions or testim ony. See Delta & Pine Land, 530 F.3d at 398-99 (explaining that courts m ust “refrain from m aking credibility determinations or weighing the evidence” on summ ary judgm ent). 12 R. Doc. 124. 13 See id.; R. Doc. 77-5; R. Doc. 77-3. 5 create a disputed issue of m aterial fact as to whether Michel was exposed to asbestos from defendants’ products that substantially contributed to his m esotheliom a. Michel testified to servicing autom otive brakes on m ostly Ford trucks during his tim e at Gulf Bottlers and Crescent Ford, 14 and he testified to replacing gaskets on Cummins and Onan engines during his time at Menge Pum p. 15 Dr. Finkelstein and Depasquale opine that these activities would have exposed Michel to significant am ounts of asbestos. 16 The prem ise of defendants’ argument for sum m ary judgment having failed, the Court denies defendants’ m otion for sum m ary judgm ent. Cum m ins alone argues that plaintiffs have not m et their burden of proving that Michel was exposed to levels of asbestos from Cum m ins or Onan products sufficient to m ake its products a substantial cause of his m esotheliom a. 17 To prove its case against Cum m ins and Onan, plaintiffs m ust show “that [Michel] was exposed to asbestos from the defendant’s products and that he received an injury that was substantially caused by that exposure.” Robertson v. Doug Ashy Bldg. Mats., Inc., 77 So. 3d 360 , 371 (La. 14 R. Doc. 77-6 at 49-50 . Id. at 96. 16 R. Doc. 77-5 at 4-8; R. Doc. 77-3 at 7-15. 17 R. Doc. 70 -1 at 12-14, 18. Cum m ins has acquired Onan since Michel’s alleged asbestos exposure. See R. Doc. 70 -11 at 38. 6 15 App. 1 Cir. 20 11) (citing Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc., 16 So. 3d 10 65, 10 88 (La. 20 0 9)). Michel testified that he often worked with Cum m ins and Onan products, and, specifically, that he rebuilt m any Onan diesel engines from scratch, 18 performed m aintenance on Cum m ins engines on Onan generators, 19 and scraped, sanded, and replaced Cumm ins gaskets. 20 Cum m ins’ corporate representative testified that some of Cum m ins’s and Onan’s gaskets contained asbestos during the tim e that Michel was working with their products as a m echanic. 21 In addition, plaintiffs’ will present expert testim ony that Michel’s work with gaskets, m uch of which involved Cum m ins and Onan products, exposed him to asbestos. 22 This evidence is sufficient to create a m aterial factual dispute as to whether Michel was exposed to asbestos from Cum m ins and Onan products. See id. at 374 (“[P]laintiffs’ failure to offer affirmative evidence pinpointing a specific product, at a specific tim e, and at a specific location, to which [plaintiff] had been exposed, does not entitle [a defendant] to sum m ary judgm ent.”). 18 R. Doc. 77-6 at 399-40 0 . Id. at 396. 20 Id. at 40 1-40 2, 429-431. 21 R. Doc. 70 -11 at 47-48, 62, 97; see also id. at 113 (citing a study concluding that one in every eight Cum m ins gaskets from this period contained asbestos). 22 R. Doc. 77-5 at 7-8. 7 19 On the issue of causation, plaintiffs will present expert testim ony that exposure to these products was a substantial causative factor in Michel’s m esotheliom a. 23 Whether to credit this testim ony is a question of fact for the jury. Id. at 375 (“Whether a particular exposure constitutes a substantial contributing factor in the developm ent of the disease of m esotheliom a is a question of fact.”). Thus, whether Michel’s exposure to asbestos from Cum m ins or Onan products substantially contributed to his m esotheliom a raises a m aterial issue of fact that precludes sum m ary judgm ent. IV. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ m otion for sum m ary judgment is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _7th _ _ _ day of J anuary, 20 19. _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 23 See R. Doc. 77-3. 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
