Thibodeaux v. General Electric Company

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

REED THIBODEAUX, et al. CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 24-1111

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. SECTION M (1)

ORDER & REASONS Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Cynthia Thibodeaux as a party plaintiff filed by defendant Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (“Avondale”).1 The motion is set for submission on April 17, 2025.2 Local Rule 7.5 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion be filed no later than eight days before the noticed submission date, making the deadline in this instance April 9, 2025. Plaintiffs Reed Thibodeaux and Cynthia Thibodeaux, who are represented by counsel, did not file an opposition to the motion. Accordingly, because the motion is unopposed and appears to have merit,3 IT IS ORDERED that Avondale’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Cynthia Thibodeaux as a party plaintiff (R. Doc. 135) is GRANTED, and Cynthia Thibodeaux is DISMISSED as a plaintiff in this case.

1 R. Doc. 135. 2 R. Doc. 135-3. 3 This case involves claims related to plaintiff Reed Thibodeaux’s employment-related asbestos exposure and subsequent mesothelioma diagnosis. R. Doc. 1-2. Cynthia Thibodeaux, Reed’s wife, is named as a plaintiff but brings no claims of her own against any defendant. Id. Further, as Avondale points out, Reed’s asbestos exposure is alleged to have occurred prior to 1982. R. Doc. 135-1. Under Louisiana law, there is no loss of consortium claim for asbestos exposure that occurred prior to 1982. See Landry v. Avondale Indus., Inc., 864 So. 2d 117, 124 (La. 2003). Thus, Avondale’s motion must be granted. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of April, 2025.

________________________________ BARRY W. ASHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE