Opinion
Case No.: 14cv1567 BTM(BGS)
09-08-2015
GAIL ELIZABETH WALASHEK, Individually and as successor-in-interest to THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL WALASHEK and THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER LINDEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On June 30, 2015, Defendant Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. ("Crown") filed a motion for summary judgment against Plaintiffs. On July 24, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition to Crown's motion.
On June 17, 2014, Plaintiffs commenced this wrongful death and survival action in state court. The Complaint alleges that Michael Walashek's exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products, in the course of performing his work for various employers, resulted in severe and permanent injury and ultimately death. On June 27, 2014, this action was removed to federal court.
Crown has been sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Mundet Cork Company ("Mundet"). Crown moves for summary judgment on the ground that (1) Plaintiffs cannot show that Crown ever manufactured, distributed, advertised, sold, installed or removed asbestos or any kind of asbestos-containing product; and (2) Plaintiffs cannot establish that the decedent was ever exposed to asbestos from working with or around any Crown or Mundet products.
Crown has submitted evidence that Crown has never been in the business of manufacturing, distributing, advertising, selling, installing or removing asbestos or any type of asbestos-containing products. (Krzyzanowski Decl. ¶ 3.) Crown also points to Plaintiffs' discovery responses, which fail to identify specific documents or facts supporting Plaintiffs' claims against Crown. (Def.'s Exs. J, K.)
In Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosure Statement, Plaintiffs identified James Doud, Ron Gray, and Frank Walashek as the individuals who possess general knowledge of the decedent's work with and around asbestos-containing products and materials. (Def. 's Ex. F.) However, at their depositions, Plaintiffs stipulated that each of these witnesses had no personal information against Crown (individually and as successor-in-interest to Mundet) and would not be testifying against Crown in this case. (Def.'s Exs. G, H, I.)
Crown has satisfied its initial burden of production on summary judgment by showing that Plaintiffs have insufficient evidence of an essential element of their case - i.e., that Mr. Walashek was exposed to any asbestos-containing product attributable to Crown or Mundet. "In the context of a cause of action for asbestos-related latent injuries, the plaintiff must first establish some threshold exposure to the defendant's defective asbestos-containing products, and must further establish in reasonable medical probability that a particular exposure or series of exposures was a "legal cause" of his injury, i.e., a substantial factor in bringing about the injury." Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal. 4th 953, 982 (1997).
Because Crown has satisfied its initial burden, the burden shifts to Plaintiffs, who must produce enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence in opposition to the motion and have instead filed a notice of non-opposition.
Therefore, the Court GRANTS Crown's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 244] against Plaintiffs. Because the Court finds that there is no just reason for delay, the Court orders the Clerk to enter final judgment in favor of defendant Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 8, 2015
/s/_________
Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge
United States District Court