Ten Motions for Summary Judgment Granted due to Lack of Identification United States District Court, D. Delaware, November 19, 2019

DELAWARE – The plaintiffs, Kent and Cathy Mosher, filed an asbestos-related action in Delaware Superior Court on January 25, 2018. The complaint alleged Kent Mosher contracted mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure during his employment as a boiler technician in the United States Navy from 1973 to 1977 and through his employment at the Henderson Mine in Denver, CO from 1977 to 1983. The defendant, Crane Co., removed this matter to Delaware District Court in March 2018 pursuant to the Federal Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1442(a)(1).

After completion of discovery, including the plaintiff’s two day deposition, motions for summary judgment were filed on behalf of ten defendants. The plaintiffs did not oppose any of the motions. The court explained that summary judgment shall be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Even in cases such as this, where the plaintiffs did not oppose the motions, the court must still find that “the undisputed facts warrant judgment as a matter of law.”

Here, the court found that the plaintiff’s “deposition testimony fail[ed] to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether [the defendants’] products were a substantial factor in causing his injuries.”  All ten motions for summary judgment were granted.

Read the case decision here.

Leave a Reply

Next ArticleCourt Refuses Plaintiff’s Attempt to “Smuggle” New Discovery Requests through Motion Practice