Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ROBERT STEPHEN SENTILLES CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 21-958

HUNTINGTON INGALLS SECTION M (3) INCORPORATED, et al.

ORDER & REASONS Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Pelnor, L.L.C. (“Pelnor”).1 Plaintiff Robert Stephen Sentilles and defendant Huntington Ingalls Inc. respond in opposition.2 Having considered the parties’ memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court denies Pelnor’s motion because there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Pelnor knew or should have known about the dangers of asbestos, whether Pelnor protected its employees from, or failed to warn them about, asbestos, and whether Sentilles sustained significant exposure to asbestos when he worked at Pelnor. Moreover, Pelnor’s motion turns on a battle of the experts, which this Court cannot resolve on a motion for summary judgment. Watson v. Allstate Tex. Lloyd’s, 224 F. App’x 335, 342 (5th Cir. 2007) (observing that a “battle of the experts” typically renders summary judgment presumptively inappropriate). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Pelnor’s motion for summary judgment (R. Doc. 171) is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of April, 2022.

________________________________ BARRY W. ASHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 R. Doc. 171. 2 R. Docs. 188; 190.