govinfo:USCOURTS-laed-2_20-cv-03470-2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 
 
LINDA CROSSLAND 
 
 CIVIL ACTION 
VERSUS 
 
 NO. 20-3470 
HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INC., ET 
AL. 
 
 SECTION “R” (2) 
 
 
ORDER AND REASONS 
 
 
Before the Court is defendant The Cajun Company’s (“Cajun”) motion 
for summary judgment. 1  Plaintiff Linda Crossland does not oppose the 
motion.  Because no material facts remain in dispute, the Court grants the 
motion. 
 
 
I. BACKGROUND 
 
This case arises from plaintiff’s alleged exposure to asbestos.  Plaintiff 
filed suit in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans on September 
16, 2020.
2  Plaintiff’s petition for damages named several defendants under 
the category of “Contractor/supplier/manufacturer/professional  vendor 
 
1  R. Doc. 124. 
2  R. Doc. 1-2 at 1. 
Case 2:20-cv-03470-SSV-DPC     Document 166     Filed 02/14/22     Page 1 of 11
2 
 
defendants,” including Cajun. 3  The case was removed to this Court on 
December 20, 2020.4 
On March 26, 2021, defendant Cajun filed a voluntary petition for relief 
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy 
Court for the Western District of Louisiana. 5  In its petition, Cajun named 
plaintiff, Linda Crossland, as an unsecured creditor,  with a contingent, 
unliquidated, and disputed claim. 6  This petition was mailed to plaintiff’s 
attorneys.7 
On March 30, 2021, defendant filed a “Notice of Suggestion of 
Bankruptcy” in this Court, thereby staying further action against Cajun.8  In 
an order dated April 28, 2021, the bankruptcy court set a bar date of June 7, 
2021.9  In that same order, the bankruptcy court explicitly stated that any 
proof of claims not received by June 7 “shall not be allowed and shall be 
barred and the Debtor shall be forever discharged from any liability as to any 
 
3  R. Doc. 124-4 at 1 (Exhibit C). 
4  R. Doc. 1. 
55  R. Doc. 124-2 (Exhibit A). 
6  Id. at 7. 
7  Id. at 12. 
8  R. Doc. 124-5 (Exhibit D). 
9  R. Doc. 124-6 (Exhibit E). 
Case 2:20-cv-03470-SSV-DPC     Document 166     Filed 02/14/22     Page 2 of 11
3 
 
such claim, PROVIDED that a copy of this Order and Notice is mailed 10 to 
each scheduled creditor by the Debtor’s attorney.”11 
Although plaintiff received notice of the bankruptcy proceeding 12 and 
bar date, 13 s he did not file a timely proof of claim in the bankruptcy 
proceeding.14  On October 7, 2021, the bankruptcy court entered an order 
confirming Cajun’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan.15  The plan, as confirmed 
by the bankruptcy court, discharged any of defendant’s pre-reorganization-
plan debt unless otherwise provided for in the order. 16  Based on the 
bankruptcy court’s order, Cajun now moves for the dismissal of plaintiff’s 
claims against it, contending that , because plaintiff failed to timely file a 
proof of claims, her claims against Cajun have been discharged in 
bankruptcy. 
 
 
10  In the final order approving the reorganization plan, the bankruptcy 
court concluded that, in light of its order authorizing electronic notice, 
“notice of the claims bar date was properly given,” even if notice was 
not provided via mail.  In re Cajun Co., No. 21-50174 (W.D. La. Bankr. 
Oct. 7, 2021) (ECF No. 215). 
11  R. Doc. 124-2 at 16 (Exhibit C). 
12  R. Docs. 55 & 124-2 at 12. 
13  In re Cajun Co., No. 21-50174 (W.D. La. Bankr. 2021) (ECF No. 95); R. 
Doc. 124-2 at 18 (Exhibit C). 
14  In re Cajun Co., No. 21-50174 (W.D. La. Bankr. Oct. 7, 2021) (ECF No. 
215). 
15  R. Doc. 124-3 at 89. 
16  Doc. 124-2 at 18 (Exhibit C). 
Case 2:20-cv-03470-SSV-DPC     Document 166     Filed 02/14/22     Page 3 of 11
4 
 
II. LEGAL STANDARD 
 
Summary judgment is warranted when “the movant shows that there 
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to 
judgment as a matter of law.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. 
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 
1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (per curiam).  “When assessing whether a 
dispute to any material fact exists, [the Court] consider[s] all of the evidence 
in the record but refrain[s] from making credibility determinations or 
weighing the evidence.”  Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness 
Ins., 530 F.3d 395, 398 -99 (5th Cir. 2008).  All reasonable inferences are 
drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, but “unsupported allegations or 
affidavits setting forth ‘ultimate or conclusory facts and conclusions of law’ 
are insufficient to either support or defeat a motion for summary judgment.”  
Galindo v. Precision Am. Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985) (quoting 
10A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 
§ 2738 (2d ed. 1983)); see also  Little, 37 F.3d at 1075.  “No genuine dispute 
of fact exists if the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of 
Case 2:20-cv-03470-SSV-DPC     Document 166     Filed 02/14/22     Page 4 of 11
5 
 
fact to find for the nonmoving party.”  EEOC v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 
481 (5th Cir. 2014). 
If the dispositive issue is one on which the moving party will bear the 
burden of proof at trial, the moving party “must come forward with evidence 
which would ‘entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went 
uncontroverted at trial.’”  Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 
1264-65 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting Golden Rule Ins. v. Lease, 755 F. Supp. 948, 
951 (D. Colo. 1991)).  “[T]he nonmoving party can defeat the motion” by 
either countering with evidence sufficient to demonstrate the “existence of a 
genuine dispute of material fact,” or by “showing that the moving party’s 
evidence is so sheer that it may not persuade the reasonable fact -finder to 
return a verdict in favor of the moving party.”  Id. at 1265. 
If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonmoving party will bear 
the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may satisfy its burden by 
pointing out that the evidence in the record is insufficient with respect to an 
essential element of the nonmovi ng party’s claim.  See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 
325.  The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, who must, by 
submitting or referring to evidence, set out specific facts showing that a 
genuine issue exists.  See id. at 324.  The nonmovant may not rest upon the 
pleadings, but must identify specific facts that establish a genuine issue for 
Case 2:20-cv-03470-SSV-DPC     Document 166     Filed 02/14/22     Page 5 of 11
6 
 
resolution.  See, e.g., id.; Little, 37 F.3d at 1075 (“Rule 56 ‘mandates the entry 
of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, 
against a party w ho fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the 
existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party 
will bear the burden of proof at trial.’”  (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322)). 
In the Fifth Circuit, a district court may not grant a “default” summary 
judgment on the ground that it is unopposed.  Morgan v. Fed. Express Corp., 
114 F. Supp. 3d 434, 437 (S.D. Tex. 2015) (collecting cases).  Even in the 
context of unopposed motions for summary judgment, the movant must still 
show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that it is entitled to 
summary judgment as a matter of law.  Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. , 50 
F.3d 360, 363 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995).  When a motion for summary judgment is 
unopposed, a court may accept the movant’s evidence as undisputed.  
Morgan, 114 F. Supp. 3d at 437 (quoting UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Long, 
227 F. Supp. 2d 609 (N.D. Tex. 2002)).  Nevertheless, if the moving party 
fails to meet its burden, the Court must deny its motion for summary 
judgment.  Hetzel, 50 F.3d at 362 n.3. 
 
Case 2:20-cv-03470-SSV-DPC     Document 166     Filed 02/14/22     Page 6 of 11
7 
 
III. DISCUSSION 
 
In order to qualify as a Chapter 11 bankruptcy creditor, any creditor 
“whose claim or interest is not scheduled or scheduled as disputed, 
contingent, or unliquidated” must file a proof of claim or interest by a bar 
date set by the bankruptcy court.  Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3003(c)(2) .  A creditor 
who does not file a proof of claim before the bar date “shall not be treated as 
a creditor with respect to such claim for purposes of voting and distribution.”  
Id.; In re DLH Master Land Holdings, L.L.C., 464 F. App’x 316, 317 n.1 (5th 
Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (defining a “Bar Date” as “the date by which all 
creditors must file their proof of claim in order to be treated as a creditor”).  
But a creditor who fails to file a proof of claim before the bar date “can be 
barred for untimeliness only upon a showing that it recei ved reasonable 
notice.”  In re Eagle Bus Mfg., Inc., 62 F.3d 730, 735 (5th Cir. 1995) (internal 
quotation omitted).  Notice of a bankruptcy proceeding and relevant bar date 
is considered “reasonable” if it satisfies due -process requirements.  Id. at 
736.  Due process requires notice that is “reasonably calculated to reach all 
interested parties, reasonably conveys all of the required information, and 
permits a reasonable amount of time for response.”  Id. at 735 (quoting 
Case 2:20-cv-03470-SSV-DPC     Document 166     Filed 02/14/22     Page 7 of 11
8 
 
Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co. v. Bullock (In re Robintech, Inc.), 863 F.2d 
393, 396 (5th Cir. 1989)).   
Here, the bankruptcy court set the bar date for June 7, 2021. 17  In 
addition to receiving notice of the Cajun bankruptcy from Cajun’s “Notice of 
Suggestion of Bankruptcy” 18 filed in this proceeding, Cajun attaches to its 
motion records from the bankruptcy court19 showing that plaintiff’s counsel 
was mailed a notice of the bankruptcy petition .20  The bankruptcy court 
docket also shows that  on April 28, 2021, p laintiff’s counsel received by  
“electronic transmission” notice of the relevant bar date.21  Rule 2002(a)(7) 
 
17  R. Doc. 124-6 at 1 (Exhibit E). 
18  R. Doc. 55. 
19  In addition to the records attached by defendant, the Court takes 
judicial notice of the docket of the Chapter 11 c ase in the Bankruptcy 
Court for the Western District of Louisiana.  See Fed. R. Evid. 201; 
Ferguson v. Extraco Mortg. Co., 264 F. App’x 351, 352 (5th Cir. 2007) 
(per curiam) (noting that a district court can take judicial notice of “a 
document filed in another court . . . to establish the fact of such 
litigation and related filings.” (quoting Taylor v. Charter Med. Corp. , 
162 F.3d 827, 829 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)); see also In re Base 
Holdings, LLC, No. 9 -34269, 2014 WL 895403, at *1 n.5 (N.D. Tex. 
Mar. 5, 2014) (taking judicial notice sua sponte of several documents 
from related bankruptcy court proceedings). 
20  R. Doc. 124-2 at 12. 
21  In re Cajun Co ., No. 21 -50174 (W.D. La. Bankr. 2021) ( ECF No. 95).  
The bankruptcy court ordered on April 1, 2021 that “electronic notice 
is deem[ed] proper notice in this proceeding under all applicable 
Bankruptcy Rules, Local Rules, and the Bankruptcy Code including 
Plan confirmation, to any party who entered an appearance on the 
Court’s CM/ECF system or who is designed or shown by the Clerk of 
Case 2:20-cv-03470-SSV-DPC     Document 166     Filed 02/14/22     Page 8 of 11
9 
 
requires that the debtor provide a creditor with notice of “the time fixed for 
filing proof of claims” at least twenty -one days before the bar date.  
Accordingly, plaintiff was given timely notice of the bar date.   
Furthermore, the Court finds that this notice was reasonably calculated 
to inform plaintiff of the bar date, as a matter of due process.  See In re Sam, 
894 F.2d 778, 781 -82 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding that plaintiff’s attorney’s 
receipt of the notice of automatic stay in plaintiff’s case against debtor 
eighteen days before the bar date was sufficient notice that plaintiff’s claim 
“was affected by [the] bankruptcy,” and provided him with sufficient time “to 
inquire as to the bar date and file his complaint or a motion to extend the bar 
date”); In re TEMSCO NC Inc., 537 B.R. 108, 124 (D.P.R. 2015) (“[T]he court 
finds that the [creditors] received reasonable notice of [debtor’s] bankruptcy 
filing . . . and the deadline to file a proof of claim [after it] was noticed by 
electronic transmission by the Bankruptcy Noticing Center.”).  Moreover, 
given that plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Cajun’s motion for summary 
judgment, the Court find s undisputed Cajun’s statement in its motion that 
“Plaintiff received notice of the bankruptcy proceeding and bar date through, 
at least, the Petition for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection . . . and Order for 
 
this Court as receiving notice electronically.”  In re Cajun Co ., No. 21-
50174 (W.D. La. Bankr. 2021) (ECF No. 21).   
Case 2:20-cv-03470-SSV-DPC     Document 166     Filed 02/14/22     Page 9 of 11
10 
 
Notice of Final Date for Filings Proofs of Claim.” 22  See Sanchez v. Anco 
Insulations, Inc., No. 20 -2973, 2021 WL 1564575, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr. 21, 
2021) (quoting Morgan, 114 F. Supp. 3d at 437).  For these reasons, the Court 
finds that plaintiff received reasonable notice of the deadline for filing a proof 
of claim. 
Although plaintiff received notice of the bar date, she did not file a 
timely proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding by June 7.23  On October 
7, 2021, the bankruptcy court confirmed the Chapter 11 plan of 
reorganization and thus discharged any pre-plan debtors except as provided 
by the plan. 24  Accordingly, under the terms of the reorganization plan and 
11 U.S.C. § 1141, plaintiff’s claims have been discharged .  T herefore, her 
claims against Cajun in this action must be dismissed.  See In re Sam , 894 
F.2d at 781-82 (affirming the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against defendant 
after plaintiff failed to file objections to the discharge of his claims before the 
bar date passed); Salard v. Salard, 781 F. Supp. 2d 363, 369 (W.D. La. 2011) 
(granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment after finding that there 
was no genuine dispute of material fa ct that the creditors had “notice and 
 
22  R. Doc. 124-1 at 4. 
23  R. Doc. 124- 6 at 2; see also In re Cajun Co ., No. 21-50174 (W.D. La. 
Bankr. 2021). 
24  In re Cajun Co., No. 21-50174 (W.D. La. Bankr. Oct. 7, 2021) (ECF No. 
215). 
Case 2:20-cv-03470-SSV-DPC     Document 166     Filed 02/14/22     Page 10 of 11
11 
 
actual knowledge of [debtor’s] bankruptcy proceedings in sufficient time to 
object to the discharge of [their] claims”); see also 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(3) 
(noting that a discharge “operates as an injunction against the 
commencement or continuation of an action . . . to collect or recover from . . . 
property of the debtor . . . . ”).  Accordingly, the Court grants Cajun’s motion 
for summary judgment, and dismisses Cajun from this matter. 
 
 
IV. CONCLUSION 
 
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion for 
summary judgment.   Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Cajun are 
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.  
 
 
 
 
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of February, 2022. 
 
 
_____________________ 
SARAH S. VANCE 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
14th
Case 2:20-cv-03470-SSV-DPC     Document 166     Filed 02/14/22     Page 11 of 11

Passage view · GavelSight