Thomas v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC

350 F. Supp. 3d 756
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Thomas v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC. Read the opinion of the Court — 362 F. Supp. 3d 610
District Court, E.D. Arkansas·Decided December 10, 2018·No. CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00522 BSM·Published

Opinion

Brian S. Miller, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*757Defendant 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

350 F. Supp. 3d 756 (Thomas v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Chavers v. General Motors Corp.
79 S.W.3d 361 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2002)