Court Grants Pump Manufacturer’s Unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment Finding No Genuine Issue of Material Fact

LOUISIANA – On March 7, 2018, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, Cary Gomez, alleging take-home exposure to asbestos through the plaintiff’s father’s employment at Avondale Shipyards in the 1960s, and through the plaintiff’s work as a plumber for Aardvark Contractors, Inc. from 1988 to 2011. The plaintiff contends that he contracted mesothelioma from his exposure to asbestos.

The defendant, Viking Pump, Inc., filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff has failed to provide evidence:

  1. That the plaintiff or his father, Stanley Gomez, were exposed to harmful levels of asbestos from products and/or equipment manufactured or sold by Viking Pump
  2. That any alleged exposure occurred on a regular basis
  3. That the alleged exposure was for an extended period of time
  4. That either the plaintiff or his father worked in close proximity to products and/or equipment made and/or sold by Viking Pump that resulted in exposures to harmful levels of asbestos
  5. That any alleged exposure was a substantial causal factor in the plaintiff’s alleged mesothelioma.

The plaintiff did not oppose the motion.

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)).

The defendant supports its motion by arguing that the plaintiff failed to provide any testimony or evidence to show that the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from any Viking Pump products. In granting the motion, the court concluded that there is no genuine issue of material fact “regarding Viking Pump manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products and/or equipment that resulted in Plaintiff and/or his father’s exposure to asbestos.”

Read the case decision here.