Roussell v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc.
2:20-cv-02857
E.D. La.Feb 25, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Marsha T. Roussell was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma on November 21, 2019 and alleges it resulted from secondhand asbestos exposure brought home by her father and uncle, who worked at Avondale Shipyard.
- Roussell alleges her father and uncle were exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured by defendants General Electric Company (GE) and Foster Wheeler, LLC (Foster), which caused her exposure.
- Under Louisiana law a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence exposure to the defendant’s product and that the exposure was a substantial cause of the injury; asbestos cases commonly proceed under concurrent-causation principles and courts recognize that any non-trivial exposure can contribute to mesothelioma.
- GE and Foster moved for summary judgment, arguing Roussell has no evidence she was exposed to their products.
- Roussell, represented by counsel, did not file any opposition to the summary-judgment motions by the Local Rule 7.5 deadline.
- The court treated the motions as unopposed, found them to have merit, granted GE’s and Foster’s motions for summary judgment, and dismissed Roussell’s claims against them with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to summary judgment based on lack of evidence of exposure and causation | No opposition filed | No evidence Roussell was exposed to GE's or Foster's products | Granted — claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Effect of failure to oppose under Local Rule 7.5 and Rule 56 precedent | No opposition filed | Unopposed motions and Celotex standard permit entry of summary judgment against a party that fails to show an essential element | Granted — court treated omission as admission and entered summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (Rule 56 summary-judgment standard; entry of judgment where party fails to show an essential element)
- Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065 (La. 2009) (plaintiff must prove exposure to defendant’s product and that exposure was a substantial cause)
- Adams v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 923 So. 2d 118 (La. App. 2005) (concurrent causation and substantial-factor test)
- Vodanovich v. A.P. Green Indus., 869 So. 2d 930 (La. App. 2004) (analysis of multiple defendants under concurrent causation)
- McAskill v. American Marine Holding Co., 9 So. 3d 264 (La. App. 2009) (every non-trivial asbestos exposure contributes to mesothelioma)