Garcia v. Georgia Pacific
N16C-03-185 ASB
| Del. Super. Ct. | Aug 18, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Lorenzo I. Garcia sued Georgia-Pacific and others in Delaware Superior Court in an asbestos case.
- The court granted Defendant Georgia-Pacific partial summary judgment at oral argument on July 7, 2017; the written order was entered July 20, 2017.
- The partial summary judgment barred Plaintiff’s claims based on Georgia-Pacific’s pre-1973 products because Georgia-Pacific manufactured both asbestos-containing and non-asbestos joint compound beginning in 1973 and there was no evidence Plaintiff worked with asbestos-containing product after 1973.
- Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Reargument and Reconsideration on July 25, 2017 (five days after the order), arguing the court overlooked that Georgia-Pacific stopped distributing asbestos joint compound in September 1973 in Acme, Texas and that the court’s order improperly barred all pre-1973 claims.
- Defendant responded that the motion was untimely and that the court’s Stigliano-based analysis correctly supported granting partial summary judgment as to pre-1973 claims.
- The court evaluated the Rule 59(e) standard (whether the court overlooked controlling law or facts) and denied Plaintiff’s motion, finding the September 1973 distribution date did not change the prior ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Rule 59(e) motion | Motion filed July 25, 2017 was within 5 days of July 20 order | Motion untimely | Motion was timely (filed within 5 days) |
| Scope of partial summary judgment re: pre-1973 claims | Court overlooked that Georgia-Pacific stopped distributing asbestos joint compound in Sept. 1973 (Acme, TX), so pre-1973 claims should not be barred | Summary judgment properly barred pre-1973 claims because Georgia-Pacific began making non-asbestos and asbestos-containing joint compound in 1973 and there is no evidence Plaintiff encountered asbestos-containing product post-1973 | Motion for reargument denied; court did not find overlooked controlling facts or law that would change outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- McDaniel v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 860 A.2d 321 (Del. 2004) (Rule 59(e) motions must be filed within five days of the court’s opinion or decision)
- Brenner v. Vill. Green, Inc., 763 A.2d 90 (Del. 2000) (reargument under Rule 59(e) is limited to matters the court overlooked and is not a vehicle to rehash arguments)