Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Louis H. Catrett, Deceased v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp

Brief Fact Summary.

Woman sues asbestos companies for allegedly causing the death of her husband from asbestos. 13 of the 14 companies moved for summary judgement claiming the wife did not show that her husband was exposed to their products, and the wife counters with three documents to prove that he was. The district court still granted all 13 motions for summary judgement. Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgement given to Defendant Celotex and the court of appeals reversed.         The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case back down to the court of appeals

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A showing in opposition to a motion for summary judgement is sufficient to avoid summary judgement if it would be adequate to carry the non-movant’s burden of proof at trial.

Facts.

Plaintiff Catrett sues asbestos companies for allegedly causing the death of her husband because he was exposed to their products.  Defendant Celotex moved for summary judgement claiming that Plaintiff Catrett failed to present evidence that her husband was exposed to Celotex’s products. In response, Plaintiff Catrett submitted three documents that suggested her husband was exposed to Celotex’s products. The district court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgement because Plaintiff Catreet lacked sufficient evidence to show that her husband was exposed to Celotex’s products in the District of Columbia or elsewhere. The court of appeals reversed on the ground that Defendant Celotex had not offered any evidence to support its motion for summary judgement. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals finding that under Adickes a moving party is not required to show evidence of absence of a genuine issue of material fact and remanded the decision as to whether or not the countervailing evidence offered by Plaintiff Catrett to counter Defendant Celotex’s motion for summary judgement would be sufficient to carry Catrett’s burden of proof at trial.

Issue.

Is a showing in opposition to a motion for summary judgement sufficient to avoid summary judgement if it would be adequate to carry the non-movant’s burden of proof at trial?

Held.

Yes, a showing in opposition to a motion for summary judgement is sufficient to avoid summary judgement if it would be adequate to carry the non-movant’s burden of proofat trial. The judgement is reversed and remanded further back down to the trial court.

Dissent.

Justice Circuit Judge Bork dissenting

Plaintiff Catrett has not made an adequate showing of causation because merely providing potential witnesses does not make an adequate showing of facts. The court’s holding creates a vague summary judgement standard and it proposes that judges consider inadmissible evidence when ruling on summary judgement motions.

Discussion.

1. Under FRCP 56 the court may in passing a summary judgement motion take into account any material that would be admissible at trial.
2. In this case, Plaintiff Catrett’s submission of a letter from an executive that her husband worked with and his affirmation that her husband worked with Firebar which is owned by Defendant Celotex and contained asbestos, was enough evidence to avoid summary judgement.
3. Even if the letter was not admissible at trial, testimony from the executive who was listed as one of Plaintiff Catrett’s witnesses would be admissible.
4. This is enough evidence to avoid summary judgement
5. A motion filed by a party for the court to make a determination without a full trial. Is granted if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court considers the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
6.  and therefore the judgement is reversed and remanded.