Filed: Mar. 07, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 07, 2014
Summary: UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUPPORTING DEFENDANT CUMMINS, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MANUEL L. REAL, District Judge. Defendant Cummins, Inc.'s ("Cummins") Motion for Summary Judgment, alternatively Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Plaintiff Paul Olds ("Motion"), came on regularly for hearing on January 27, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Manuel L. Real, United States District Judge presiding in Courtroom 8 of the above-referenced Court. After conside
Summary: UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUPPORTING DEFENDANT CUMMINS, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MANUEL L. REAL, District Judge. Defendant Cummins, Inc.'s ("Cummins") Motion for Summary Judgment, alternatively Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Plaintiff Paul Olds ("Motion"), came on regularly for hearing on January 27, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Manuel L. Real, United States District Judge presiding in Courtroom 8 of the above-referenced Court. After consider..
More
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUPPORTING DEFENDANT CUMMINS, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MANUEL L. REAL, District Judge.
Defendant Cummins, Inc.'s ("Cummins") Motion for Summary Judgment, alternatively Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Plaintiff Paul Olds ("Motion"), came on regularly for hearing on January 27, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Manuel L. Real, United States District Judge presiding in Courtroom 8 of the above-referenced Court.
After considering all papers filed in support of the Motion, including all admissible evidence filed in support thereof, having read and considered all papers filed in opposition to the Motion, including all admissible evidence filed in opposition thereto, the Court hereby makes the following findings of uncontroverted facts and conclusions of law supporting the entry of summary judgment in favor of Cummins, Inc.'s favor and against Plaintiff Paul Olds.
Uncontroverted Material Fact: Supporting Evidence:
1. On October 4, 2012, Paul Olds filed the 1. Plaintiff's Complaint attached as
instant action against numerous Exhibit A to the Declaration of Lisa A.
defendants, alleging that he developed Jones ("Jones Decl."), at pp. 4:13-16:5.
mesothelioma as a result of exposure to
asbestos during his career as a mechanic
and supervisor.
2. In Plaintiff's Response to Cummins' 2. Cummins' Special Interrogatories to
Special Interrogatory Number 1 asking Plaintiff are attached as Exhibit B and
Plaintiff to identify any facts supporting Plaintiff's Responses to Special
his claim against Cummins, Plaintiff stated Interrogatories, at Interrogatory Number
that Cummins supplied engines with 1 is attached as Exhibit C of Jones Decl.
asbestos containing gaskets to OEM
truck/tractor manufacturers including
International, Ford, Kenworth and
Peterbilt.
3. Plaintiff claims that the "original 3. Cummins' Special Interrogatories to
asbestos gaskets were removed and Plaintiff are attached as Exhibit B and
replaced in Plaintiff's presence while Plaintiff's Responses to Special
working at Ryder [T]ruck in Orland[o], Interrogatories, at Interrogatory Number
Florida from 1969 to 1979 using 1 is attached as Exhibit C of Jones Decl.
scrappers." Plaintiff claims that the
asbestos gaskets were swept up in his
presence and new asbestos gaskets
supplied by Cummins were also removed
during maintenance of the engines.
4. Plaintiff claims that the "original 4. Cummins' Special Interrogatories to
asbestos gaskets were removed and Plaintiff are attached as Exhibit B and
replaced in Plaintiff's presence while Plaintiff's Responses to Special
Uncontroverted Material Fact: Supporting Evidence:
working at Ryder [T]ruck in Orland[o], Interrogatories, at Interrogatory Number
Florida from 1969 to 1979 using 1 is attached as Exhibit C of Jones Decl.
scrappers" and that the asbestos gaskets
were swept up in his presence and new
asbestos gaskets supplied by Cummins
were also removed during maintenance
of the engines.
5. Plaintiff did not produce any 5. Cummins' Request for Production of
documents in response to Cummins' Documents to Plaintiff is attached as
Request for Production of Documents. Exhibit D and Plaintiff's Responses to
Cummins' Requests for Production of
Documents attached as Exhibit E of the
Jones Decl.
6. At his deposition, Plaintiff testified that 6. The deposition transcript of Paul Olds
he was present while another mechanic taken is attached as Exhibit F of the
performed a tune up on a Kenworth truck Jones Decl., at p. 562: 9-14.
in 1975 while working for Ryder at the
Director of Rows facility.
7. Plaintiff admits that he was not 7. The deposition transcript of Paul Olds
present for removal of the valve cover taken is attached as Exhibit F of the
gasket and claims that a Cummins Jones Decl., at pp. pp. 562: 9-14, 569:5-asbestos-type
valve cover gasket was 11 and 617:10-619:25.
installed onto the truck but testified as
follows:
A: But I wouldn't make a
specific inspect of it.
Q. Right. You didn't
handle that gasket?
A. Well, no, no. I
wouldn't have handled it.
Q. Okay.
8. Plaintiff admitted that as supervisor, 8. The deposition transcript of Paul Olds
Uncontroverted Material Fact: Supporting Evidence:
he would get his paperwork and just taken is attached as Exhibit F of the
make sure work was being done on the Jones Decl., at pp. 565:25-567:2.
trucks, that he would not be in the bay
with the mechanic while work was being
done on the truck.
9. Plaintiff claims that the new valve 9. The deposition transcript of Paul Olds
cover gasket was purchased by a "parts taken is attached as Exhibit F of the
girl" from a Cummins store in Orange Jones Decl., at pp. 703:15-704:3,
Blossom but admitted that the application 7:04:14-20 and 705:6-12.
of that valve cover gasket would not
create dust in the following testimony:
Q. Okay. The process of
actually putting the new
gasket — just the new
gasket we're talking
about — putting this new
Cummins gasket onto the
engine — or the valve cover,
that process of laying a
gasket down did not create
dust; is that
A. Putting it on, no, did
not create.
10. Plaintiff testified that he was also 10. The deposition transcript of Paul
present when a mechanic installed a Olds taken is attached as Exhibit F of the
water pump gasket on a 290 Cummins Jones Decl., at pp. 705:21-706:20.
engine, however, he does not know what
year the work was done, which mechanic
did the work, the make or model number
of the tractor or truck in which the engine
was housed.
11. Additionally, Plaintiff did not know 11. The deposition transcript of Paul
the maintenance history for the tractor or Olds taken is attached as Exhibit F of the
Uncontroverted Material Fact: Supporting Evidence:
truck from which the water pump was Jones Decl., at p. 709:8-15.
removed and he does not know whether
the pump was original to the vehicle.
12. He could not identify the 12. The deposition transcript of Paul
manufacturer of the water pump gasket Olds taken is attached as Exhibit F of the
being removed. Jones Decl., at pp. 709:24-710:3.
13. As to the replacement water pump 13. The deposition transcript of Paul
gasket, he could not describe the gasket Olds taken is attached as Exhibit F of the
other than it was preformed and that he Jones Decl., at pp. 706:21-707:22.
believed it came with the water pump
allegedly purchased from the Cummins
store by the parts girl, however, he then
admitted that he did not see the
packaging of either the pump or the
gasket and that he did not see any
markings or logos on the gasket itself.
14. Plaintiff testified that no dust was 14. The deposition transcript of Paul
created by installation of the water pump Olds taken is attached as Exhibit F of the
gasket. Jones Decl., at pp. 708:25-709:4.
15. Plaintiff testified that there are no 15. The deposition transcript of Paul
occasions in which he can recall seeing a Olds taken is attached as Exhibit F of the
Cummins gasket being handled by a Jones Decl., at p. 710:4-11.
mechanics while he was a service
manager at Ryder other than those two
instances discussed.
16. Plaintiff testified that he has never 16. The deposition transcript of Paul
received anything in writing from Olds taken is attached as Exhibit F of the
Cummins corporation or any Cummins Jones Decl., at p. 713:3-8.
employee.
17. Other than a thirty minute 17. The deposition transcript of Paul
conversation about in-service of trucks at Olds taken is attached as Exhibit F of the
Uncontroverted Material Fact: Supporting Evidence:
his station with a service manager of a Jones Decl., at pp. 710:13-23 and
Cummins store on an occasion in which 711:21-712:15.
he cannot recall the identification of the
individual or a time period in which the
conversation occurred, he has not had
any other oral communications with a
Cummins representative.
18. Plaintiff did not personally purchase 18. The deposition transcript of Paul
anything from a Cummins store or Olds taken is attached as Exhibit F of the
representative. Jones Decl., at p. 711:18-20.
19. Plaintiff is in possession of a 19. The deposition transcript of Paul
certification issued January 11, 1974 Olds taken is attached as Exhibit F of the
issued by Ryder regarding the Jones Decl., at pp. 713:23-714:22.
maintenance of a Cummins diesel engine.
20. He claims to have received one-day 20. The deposition transcript of Paul
training by a Ryder employee in his Olds taken is attached as Exhibit F of the
mechanical shop in Central Park on the Jones Decl., at pp. 715:11-716:13, and
overhaul of a 220 Cummins engine in 716:18-717:7.
which he removed valve and injector
gaskets but testified that he does not
know the maintenance history of the
engine or whether the gaskets removed
were original to the engine.
21. He claims that he used Cummins 21. The deposition transcript of Paul
replacement gaskets from his parts room Olds taken is attached as Exhibit F of the
but testified that this application did not Jones Decl., at pp. 717:14-23 and 719:6-create
dust. 12.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
1. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 56, summary judgment is warranted because of the evidence shows no genuine issue of material fact, entitling Cummins to judgment as a matter of law.
2. Plaintiff's claims failed due to a lack of proof of exposure to an asbestos-containing Cummins product.
3. There is no evidence that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos as result of contact with any product manufactured, sold, or distributed by Cummins and thus Plaintiff's Negligence, Strict Liability and Breach of Warranty claims are barred by applicable California law.
4. There is no evidence that Cummins and Plaintiff were in privity and therefore there is no evidence, under applicable California law, that Cummins breached any express or implied warranty to Plaintiff.
5. Plaintiff cannot set forth any admissible evidence that Cummins acted with oppression, fraud, or malice and therefore, Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages is unsupported and improper.
