U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Plaintiff Robert Stephen Sentilles was diagnosed with mesothelioma in October 2020. He filed his suit asserting negligence and strict liability claims against several defendants, including Avondale. Plaintiff alleged his illness was the result of asbestos exposure from the 1950s to the 1980s. More specifically, he alleged take-home exposure from his father and brother during their employment at Avondale, and from direct exposure from his own employment at Avondale.
Avondale filed three motions for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims concerning exposure stemming from (1) his employment at Avondale after June 23, 1969, when he moved to an office job; (2) his brother Clayton Sentilles, Jr.’s employment at Avondale; and (3) his father Clayton Sentilles, Sr.’s employment at Avondale. Avondale presented evidence in the form of the plaintiff’s own deposition testimony where he stated he was not exposed to asbestos after moving to an office clerk position in June 1969. The testimony of Avondale’s expert industrial hygienist supported the plaintiff’s admission that he was not exposed after June 1969. The plaintiff failed to oppose Avondale’s three motions it filed in April 2022. As a result, the court granted all three motions and dismissed the subject claims with prejudice.
Nearly two years later, in March 2024, the plaintiff filed a third amended, restated, and superseding complaint, which included allegations related to the previously dismissed claims. Avondale moved for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the plaintiff’s previously dismissed claims. The plaintiff agreed that the prior claims as to his father and brother’s exposure were properly dismissed, but asserted the court should reinstate his personal exposure claim based on his expert testimony. The plaintiff’s expert pathologist testified he would have been exposed to above background concentrations of asbestos while working at Avondale even after June 1969. The plaintiff proffered this testimony created a genuine issue of material fact. Avondale contended the claim the plaintiff sought to revive had been dismissed two years previously and there was no new evidence to warrant reinstatement. Critically, the expert pathologist discussed above issued his report back in April 2022. However, his deposition testimony in April 2024 contradicted his prior assessment.
A rule 12(c) motion is designed to “dispose of cases where the material facts are not in dispute and a judgment on the merits can be rendered by looking to the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noticed facts.” Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist LEXIS 180,747 (E.D. La. October 3, 2024, No. 21-958); Mendy Bros., LLC v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 2017 WL 2558891 at *4 (E.D. La. June 13, 2017) (quotation omitted). The standard for a Rule 12(c) motion is the same as that of a Rule 12(b) motion for summary judgment. As such, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly¸ 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
The court analyzed all of the plaintiff’s purportedly new evidence and concluded reconsideration was not warranted. It found the plaintiff’s argument rested on the admission evidence of his prior expert’s new deposition testimony. However, the court found the expert’s opinion testimony at his deposition did not change the undisputed factual evidence regarding post-1969 exposure. Allowing the plaintiff to employ a previously undisclosed expert opinion would be unfairly prejudicial to Avondale. It also found Avondale would be unfairly prejudiced if the plaintiff were permitted to use two industrial hygienist experts and two medical experts at trial. Thus, since the plaintiff could not establish the existence of new facts, his motion for reconsideration was denied.
Read the full decision here
