Strong v. Genuine Parts Company

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: August 30, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00136
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 U.S. F DIL ISE TD R I IN C TT H CE O URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Aug 30, 2021

3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 KRISTINA T. STRONG, Individually and as Administrator of NO: 2:20-CV-136-RMP 8 the Estate of Matthew W. Strong, deceased, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 9 DEFENDANT HONEYWELL’S Plaintiff, MOTION FOR PARTIAL 10 SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE v. CONSPIRACY AND BREACH OF 11 WARRANTY HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, 12 INC., and PNEUMO ABEX, LLC,

13 Defendants.

14 15 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Honeywell International Inc.’s 16 (“Honeywell”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 56. 17 The Court heard oral argument on August 27, 2021, via video conference. 18 Erin Fraser presented argument on behalf of Honeywell on the Motion for Partial 19 Summary Judgment. John Steffan responded on behalf of Plaintiff Kristina T. 20 Strong. The Court has reviewed the motion, heard oral argument, and is fully 21 informed. 1 This is an asbestos case brought by Kristina Strong, individually and as 2 Administrator of the Estate of Matthew T. Strong. Decedent Matthew Strong 3 developed peritoneal mesothelioma which Plaintiff alleges was caused by exposure 4 to asbestos-containing automotive friction products, including Bendix brand brakes

5 manufactured by Honeywell. See ECF Nos. 30, 80 at 1–2. 6 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint asserts liability based upon the 7 theories of product liability; common law negligence; negligent undertaking; strict

8 product liability under Section 402A and 402B of the Restatement of Torts (and 9 RCW 7.72 et. seq., as may be applicable to certain supplier-defendants); breach of 10 warranty (RCW 62A); and conspiracy. ECF No. 30 at 4. 11 Honeywell moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims based upon

12 (1) failure to warn; (2) conspiracy; and (3) breach of warranty. See ECF No. 56. 13 A court may grant summary judgment where “there is no genuine dispute as to 14 any material fact” of a party’s prima facie case, and the moving party is entitled to

15 judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 16 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). A key purpose of summary judgment “is to isolate 17 and dispose of factually unsupported claims.” Id. at 324. The moving party bears 18 the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, or in the

19 alternative, the moving party may discharge this burden by showing that there is an 20 absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s prima facie case. Id. at 325. 21 1 With respect to Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim, Honeywell contends that 2 “Plaintiff cannot show any agreement among the defendants, much less one 3 contemplating a nefarious purpose.” ECF No. 56 at 8 (citing Corbit v. J.I. Case Co., 4 70 Wn. 2d 522, 528, 424 P.2d 290 (1967)) (“[A]n actionable civil conspiracy exists

5 if two or more persons combine to accomplish an unlawful purpose or combine to 6 accomplish some purpose not in itself unlawful by unlawful means.”). Plaintiff did 7 not respond to Honeywell’s motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s

8 claim based on conspiracy. See ECF No. 80. 9 With respect to Plaintiff’s breach of warranty claim, Honeywell contends that 10 Plaintiff has not established a prima facie case because “[t]here is no evidence in the 11 record to suggest that Honeywell made an express warranty to Decedent, nor is there

12 any evidence that any Bendix product purchased by Decedent or his father were 13 unsuitable or unfit for their intended purpose.” ECF No. 56 at 8. Plaintiff did not 14 respond to Honeywell’s motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim

15 based on breach of warranty. See ECF No. 80. 16 Given Plaintiff’s non-response, the Court finds that Honeywell has shown that 17 there is an absence of evidence to support a prima facie case for Plaintiff’s claims 18 based on conspiracy and breach of warranty. Accordingly, the Court finds that

19 summary judgment is appropriate and Plaintiff’s claims based on conspiracy and 20 breach of warranty shall be dismissed with prejudice. 21 1 This Order does not resolve Honeywell’s Motion for Partial Summary 2 Judgment regarding Plaintiff’s claim based on failure to warn. The Court will 3 resolve whether or not partial summary judgment is appropriate with respect to 4 Plaintiff’s claim based on failure to warn by a separate and forthcoming order.

5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 6 1. Defendant Honeywell International Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary 7 Judgment, ECF No. 56, is GRANTED IN PART regarding Plaintiff’s claims based

8 on conspiracy and breach of warranty only. 9 2. Plaintiff’s claims based on conspiracy and breach of warranty are 10 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 11 3. Judgment shall be entered for Defendant Honeywell International Inc.

12 on Plaintiff’s claims for conspiracy and breach of warranty only. 13 4. Defendant Honeywell International Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary 14 Judgment on Plaintiff’s claim based on failure to warn, ECF No. 56, remains

15 pending and will be resolved by a separate and forthcoming order. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this 17 Order and provide copies to counsel. 18 DATED August 30, 2021.

19 s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON 20 United States District Judge 21