Thomas v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, 350 F. Supp. 3d 756 (2018)

Dec. 10, 2018 · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas · CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00522 BSM

350 F. Supp. 3d 756

Michael Lyn THOMAS, Plaintiff
v.
BORG-WARNER MORSE TEC LLC, et al., Defendants

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00522 BSM

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division.

Signed December 10, 2018

George R. Wise, Jr., Brad Hendricks Law Firm, Little Rock, AR, Aaron D. Chapman, Pro Hac Vice, Benjamin D. Braly, Pro Hac Vice, Charles W. Branham, III, Pro Hac Vice, Dean, Omar & Branham, LLP, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.

Ronald D. Harrison, Ledbetter, Cogbill, Arnold and Harrison, LLP, Fort Smith, AR, Edward M. Slaughter, Hawkins, Parnell & Thackston, LLP, Dallas, TX, Barbara Ormsby, Deutsche, Kerrigan & Stiles, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, Michael Paul Vanderford, Anderson, Murphy & Hopkins, L.L.P., Little Rock, AR, H. Barret Marshall, Jadyn C. Cleveland, Saxon Guerriere, Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston & Young LLP, Dallas, TX, Oliver Bundy, Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, David C. Schulte, Joseph S. Pevsner, Thompson & Knight LLP, Dallas, TX, John R. Henderson, McGuireWoods LLP, Dallas, TX, Kevin J. Parks, Thompson & Knight LLP, Houston, TX, Scott Andrew Irby, Kristen S. Moyers, Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, Little Rock, AR, Shepherd D. Wainger, Kaleo Legal, Virginia Beach, VA, Terrence M.R. Zic, Whiteford Taylor Preston, LLP, Bethesda, MD, J. Dennis Chambers, Atchley, Russell, Waldrop & Hlavinka, LLP, Texarkana, TX, Stephen Christopher Collier, Hawkins & Parnell, Atlanta, GA, Brian Roth, James Hiller, Robert Rich, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Chicago, IL, Bruce T. Bishop, Kevin P. Greene, Wilcox & Savage, Norfolk, VA, Gail Ponder Gaines, Barber Law Firm PLLC, Little Rock, AR, Jack Roy Reiter, GrayRobinson, P.A., Miami, FL, Julie Nord Friedman, Rawle & Henderson, LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, Scott F. Griffith, Rawle & Henderson LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Michael Bailey Heister, Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, Little Rock, AR, Shawn David Golden, Tucker Ellis LLP, Houston, TX, Gary D. Elliston, DeHay & Elliston, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, Stuart P. Miller, Anton Leo Janik, Jr., Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C., Little Rock, AR, for Defendants.

ORDER

Brian S. Miller, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Defendant DCo LLC's motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 197] is granted, and DCo is dismissed.

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). To succeed on his products liability claims against DCo, Thomas must show he was exposed to an asbestos-containing product manufactured by DCo. Chavers v. General Motors Corp. , 349 Ark. 550, 79 S.W.3d 361, 369 (Ark. 2002). DCo asserts Ronald Thomas was never exposed to a DCo product. DCo's Br. at 4-5. Thomas did not respond to DCo's motion, and there appears to be no evidence in the record of exposure to a DCo product. Thomas has not raised a dispute of material fact regarding exposure to a DCo product. For these reasons, DCo's motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 197] is granted, and DCo is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of December 2018.