The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Valerie Baker Fairbank, U.S. District Judge
Joseph Remigio None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None Present None Present
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): COURT ORDER RE DEFENDANT BASF CATALYSTS LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS [DKT. #22]
Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. The hearing set for July 25, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. is vacated and the matter taken off calendar.
The Court has received Defendant BASF Catalysts LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication of Claims (dkt. #22), Plaintiff Christopher Ford's Opposition to Defendant BASF Catalysts LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. #24), Reply in Support of Defendant BASF Catalysts LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication of Claims (dkt. #25), and related documents. For reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment, as Defendant has sufficiently shown that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and Plaintiff has not met his burden of setting forth sufficient evidence showing that there is a genuine issue of fact for trial. See Anderson v.Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2514, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
On April 2, 2011, Plaintiff Christopher Ford filed the Complaint in state court (dkt. #1, Exh. A) against Defendant Engelhard Hanovia, Inc. Plaintiff alleged products liability and negligence in connection with his exposure to Engelhard Hanovia paint between 1976 and 1980. Compl. On April 20, 2010, Plaintiff amended the Complaint to add Defendants BASF Catalysts, LLC and BASF Aktiengesellsch (dkt. #1, Exh. B). On June 8, 2010, Defendant BASF Catalysts, LLC removed the action to this Court (dkt. #1). On October 21, 2010, the Court dismissed Defendants Engelhard Hanovia and BASF Catalysts, LLC (dkt. #21), and on June 1, 2011, the remaining Defendant in this action, BASF Catalysts, LLC filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication of Claims (dkt. #22).
Summary judgment is proper where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of fact for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2514, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). "[T]he burden on the moving party may be discharged by 'showing' - that is, pointing out to the district court - that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2554, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); see also Musick v. Burke, 913 F.2d 1390, 1394 (9th Cir. 1990).
The nonmoving party's allegation that factual disputes persist between the parties will not automatically defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (nonmoving party "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleadings, but  must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial"). A "mere 'scintilla' of evidence will be insufficient to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment; instead, the nonmoving party must introduce some 'significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint.'"
Fazio v. City & County of San Francisco, 125 F.3d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 252, 106 S. Ct. at 2510, 2512). "On summary judgment, the proper task is not to weigh conflicting evidence, but rather to ask whether the non-moving party has produced sufficient evidence to permit the fact finder to hold in his favor." Ingram v. Martin Marietta Long Term Disability Income Plan for Salaried Employees of Transferred GE Operations, ...