From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hoffman v. Monsanto Company

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division
Jul 20, 2006
Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-00418 (S.D.W. Va. Jul. 20, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-00418.

July 20, 2006


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


Pending before the court is Ashland Oil, Inc's ("Ashland"), ExxonMobil Corporation, f/k/a Humble Oil Refining Corporation's ("ExxonMobil"), and Huntsman Petrochemical Corporation's ("HPC") Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 50]. The plaintiff did not respond.

While the court recognizes that defendants exist in this action other than the ones currently seeking summary judgment, for purposes of this order, the use of "the defendants" only applies to Ashland, ExxonMobil and HPC.

The defendants claim that Summary Judgment is warranted because the plaintiffs did not respond to requests for admissions within the 30 day period as provided by Rule 36(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 36, the admissions are deemed admitted if the party fails to respond to the request for admissions. The following requests for admissions were sent to the plaintiffs from each defendant:

1. No act or omission of the defendants caused or contributed to Your Injuries.
2. No exposure to any product manufactured, designed, distributed, or sold by the defendants caused or contributed to your injuries.
3. You are aware of no facts showing or tending to show that you were exposed to any trichloroethylene manufactured, designed, distributed, or sold by the defendants.
4. You are aware of no facts showing or tending to show that you were exposed to any clenzolene manufactured, designed, distributed, or sold by the defendants.
5. You are aware of no facts showing or tending to show that you were exposed to any creosote manufactured, designed, distributed, or sold by the defendants.
6. You are aware of no facts showing or tending to show that you were exposed to any hydrochloric acid manufactured, designed, distributed, or sold by the defendants.
7. You are aware of no facts showing or tending to show that you were exposed to any xylene manufactured, designed, distributed, or sold by the defendants.
8. You are aware of no facts showing or tending to show that you were exposed to any morpholene manufactured, designed, distributed or sold by the defendants.
9. You are aware of no facts showing or tending to show that any exposure to butyraldehyde caused or contributed to your injuries.
10. You are aware of no facts showing or tending to show that you were exposed to any chemicals manufactured, designed, distributed, or sold by the defendants.

The plaintiffs did not respond to any of the requests for admissions.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability and loss of consortium. The above facts, which are deemed admitted, conclusively demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists that would entitle plaintiffs to recover against the defendants under the theories of negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability and loss of consortium. The plaintiffs have been provided more than enough time to respond to the requests for admissions. Moreover, the plaintiffs have failed to respond to the summary judgment motion based on the admissions. "Admissions obtained under Rule 36, including matters deemed to be admitted by a party's failure to respond to a request for admissions, can form the basis for granting Summary Judgment." Gardner v. Borden, 110 F.R.D. 696, 697 (S.D.W. Va. 1986). Accordingly, the court GRANTS the defendant's motion for Summary Judgment and DISMISSES Ashland, ExxonMobil, and HPC from the action. The court also DENIES as moot UCC's motion for a hearing [Docket 52].

The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.


Summaries of

Hoffman v. Monsanto Company

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division
Jul 20, 2006
Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-00418 (S.D.W. Va. Jul. 20, 2006)
Case details for

Hoffman v. Monsanto Company

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES W. HOFFMAN and TERRY SUSAN HOFFMAN, his wife, Plaintiffs, v…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division

Date published: Jul 20, 2006

Citations

Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-00418 (S.D.W. Va. Jul. 20, 2006)