govinfo:USCOURTS-laed-2_23-cv-06937-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 
HORACE BRACY CIVIL ACTION 
VERSUS NO. 23-6937 
ABB, INC., ET AL. SECTION “O” 
ORDER AND REASONS 
 Before the Court in this asbestos exposure litigation are four motions1 for 
summary judgment, by Defendants Warren Pumps, LLC, Huntington Ingalls, Inc. 
(“Avondale”), International Paper Company (“IP”), and Uniroyal Holding, Inc. 
(“Uniroyal”). Certain Defendants have joined2 in Avondale’s motion. Defendants 
submit that they are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the claims asserted 
against them given the absence of any expert evidence linking Horace Bracy’s alleged 
asbestos exposure while working for Avondale to his lung cancer diagnosis.3 Warren 
Pumps, IP, and Uniroyal assert an additional ground for summary judgment: an 
absence of evidence to support the allegation that Horace Bracy 4 was exposed to 
asbestos from any products or equipment manufactured, sold, or supplied by them.5 
 
1 ECF Nos. 191, 193, 194, and 196. 
2 The following Defendants have joined in Avondale’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 
193): IP; Uniroyal; Certain Underwriters of Lloyd’s, London; General Electric Company ; Paramount 
Global; Foster Wheeler LLC; Taylor -Seidenbach, Inc.; Redco Corporation; Carrier Corporation; Elliot 
Company; ITT, LLC; IMO Industries Inc.; Warren Pumps. See ECF No. 204 (granting ECF Nos. 195, 
197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203) and ECF No. 210 (granting ECF Nos. 205, 207). 
3 See ECF Nos. 191, 193, 194, 196. 
4 Horace Bracy died in November 2025, ECF No. 140, and an amended complaint was recently 
filed, ECF No. 230, naming his son as the party plaintiff pursuing wrongful death and survival claims. 
5 See ECF Nos. 191, 194, 196. In addition to seeking summary judgment in their favor as to 
Plaintiff’s claims against them, Warren Pumps and IP seek summary judgment in their favor 
dismissing Avondale’s crossclaims against them, while Uniroyal, sued only as a third-party defendant 
by third-party plaintiff Avondale, seeks summary judgment dismissing Avondale’s claims against it. 

2 
 
These summary judgment motions were noticed for submission on March 4, 
2026, requiring Plaintiff to submit a response or opposition no later than February 
24, 2026. See LOCAL CIVIL RULE 7.5. Plaintiff has failed to file a response and has also 
failed to request any extension of the deadline to respond. 6 So, the Court considers 
the motions unopposed. The unopposed motions have merit and shall be granted. 
I. BACKGROUND 
This asbestos exposure case arises from Horace Bracy’s claim that he 
developed lung cancer due to asbestos exposure in the late 1960s following his Navy 
service when he worked aboard ships for Lykes Brothers then Avondale Industries, 
Inc.7 Seeking redress, Mr. Bracy sued numerous defendants in state court. Avondale 
removed the lawsuit in November 2023 , after which Avondale filed various 
crossclaims and third-party claims. Following an April 2025 scheduling conference, 
the governing scheduling order fixed a December 2025 deadline for Plaintiff to 
provide his expert report to the defendants and also fixed a discovery cutoff deadline 
of March 4, 2026, which coincided with the deadline to notice for submission 
dispositive motions. 8 Plaintiff never produced an expert report nor made Rule 26 
expert disclosures. Nor did Plaintiff seek an extension of any since-expired deadlines. 
Defendants timely moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff failed to respond and 
failed to request an extension to respond. 
 
6 Insofar as Defendants Warren Pumps, IP, and Uniroyal seek summary judgment dismissing 
Avondale’s crossclaims or third-party claims, Avondale likewise submitted no opposition. 
7 ECF No. 1-2 ¶¶ 10-11. 
8 ECF No. 130. Given the uncertainty and delay in substituting the plaintiff, the Court vacated 
the unexpired deadlines, which did not include the expired expert and discovery deadlines. ECF No. 
221. 

3 
 
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS 
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no 
genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter 
of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A dispute is genuine if ‘the evidence is such that a 
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Perry v. VHS San 
Antonio Partners, L.L.C ., 990 F.3d 918, 926 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Anderson v. 
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). “A fact is material if it ‘might affect the 
outcome of the suit.’” Id. (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). “[W]here the 
nonmovant bears the burden of proof at trial,” as Plaintiff does on the asbestos 
exposure claims here, “the movant may merely point to an absence of evidence, thus 
shifting to the non -movant the burden of demonstrating by competent summary 
judgment proof that there is an issue of mate rial fact warranting trial.” Lindsey v. 
Sears Roebuck & Co., 16 F.3d 616, 618 (5th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). 
To recover for asbestos exposure, Plaintiff “must show, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, he was exposed to asbestos, and he received an injury substantially 
caused by that exposure.” See Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc. , 16 So. 3d 1065, 1088 
(La. 2009), abrogated on other grounds by Pete v. Boland Marine and Mfg. Co., LLC, 
379 So. 3d 636, 643 (La. 2023). To carry this burden of proving “significant exposure 
to the [source] complained of to the extent that it was a substantial factor in bringing 
about his injury,” see id. at 1088-89, “expert testimony is . . . required to establish 
[such] causation.” See, e.g., Seaman v. Seacor Marine L.L.C. , 326 F. App’x 721, 723 
(5th Cir. 2009). 

4 
 
The moving Defendants seek summary judgment principally on the ground 
that Plaintiff cannot satisfy his burden of proof on causation because he has failed to 
produce any expert report attributing his lung cancer to asbestos exposure. 9 
Furthermore, Avondale submits that it has timely produced an expert report from 
Andrew J. Ghio, M.D., a pulmonologist, who attributed Mr. Bracy’s lung cancer to his 
smoking and not to asbestos exposure.10 Defendants Warren Pumps, IP, and Uniroyal 
submit that summary judgment in their favor (and against Plaintiff and/or Avondale) 
is warranted for the same reason plus the additional reason that Mr. Bracy failed to 
produce evidence that he ever worked with or around any asbestos -containing 
products utilized or manufactured by Warren Pumps, IP, or Uniroyal. 11 The Court 
agrees that summary judgment in favor of movants is warranted. 
 Given the absence of evidence that any exposure by Plaintiff to asbestos was 
the cause in fact of his lung cancer, the moving Defendants are entitled to summary 
judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims . As a threshold matter, Defendants’ 
statements of uncontested facts are deemed admitted. See Local Rule 56.2. In short, 
there is no evidence attributing Horace Bracy’s lung cancer to asbestos exposure. 
Plaintiff is thus unable to meet his burden of proof because there is no expert evidence 
to establish that Horace Bracy’s alleged asbestos exposure from his employment with 
Avondale was significant and substantially contributed to the development of his 
 
9 See generally ECF No. 193-1. 
10 ECF Nos. 193 -2 and 193-5 (Ex. 3, Ghio Report) at 5 (opining that Mr. Bracy’s lung cancer 
resulted from his 30-35 pack year smoking history). 
11 See ECF Nos. 191-1, 193-1, 196-1. 

5 
 
lung cancer. This absence of expert evidence favoring Plaintiff dooms his claims and 
entitles the moving Defendants to summary judgment. 
What is more, Avondale submits expert evidence that defeats Plaintiff’s mere 
allegations of asbestos -exposure causality, i.e., Avondale produced a report from 
expert pulmonologist Dr. Andrew Ghio, who opined that Mr. Bracy’s lung cancer was 
caused by smoking, not by asbestos .12 This defense expert report remains 
uncontroverted. Because Plaintiff has not met his burden of submitting expert 
evidence proving causation, the moving Defendants are entitled to judgment as a 
matter of law dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Accord Lewis v. Taylor -
Seidenbach, Inc., No. 23 -6764, 2025 WL 2460169 (E.D. La. Aug. 26, 2025) (Guidry, 
J.) (granting summary judgment in defendant’s favor in asbestos exposure case based 
on the plaintiff’s failure to identify any expert witness to support causation). 13 
Accordingly, all moving defendants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing 
with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims against them for this reason —absence of expert 
evidence to support causation—alone.14 
 Defendants Warren Pumps, IP, and Uniroyal additionally are entitled to 
summary judgment dismissing the claims of Plaintiff and/or Avondale, given the 
absence of any evidence in the record attributing Mr. Bracy’s lung cancer to exposure 
 
12 ECF Nos. 193 -2 and 193-5 (Ex. 3, Ghio Report) at 5 (opining that Mr. Bracy’s lung cancer 
resulted from his 30-35 pack year smoking history). 
13 There, like here, the plaintiff’s failure to identify any expert warranted summary judgment 
in the moving defendants’ favor. 
14 For the same reasons, Defendants IP and Warren Pumps are additionally entitled to 
summary judgment dismissing Avondale’s crossclaims against them and Uniroyal is entitled to 
summary judgment dismissing Avondale’s third-party claims against it. 

6 
 
to the specific products or equipment of Warren Pumps, IP, or Uniroyal. 15 Though 
Mr. Bracy was deposed before his death, Plaintiff has not pointed to any sworn 
testimony (or other evidence) that Mr. Bracy associated his asbestos exposure to any 
Warren Pumps, IP, or Uniroyal product or equipment with which he worked while 
employed at Avondale from June to August 1969. The absence of any evidence in the 
summary judgment record attributing Mr. Bracy’s lung cancer to exposure to any 
product or equipment of Warren Pump, IP, or Uniroyal product or equipment is 
independently fatal to asbestos-exposure claims against these three defendants. 
Finally, Defendants Warren Pumps, IP, and Uniroyal —in addition to joining 
in Avondale’s motion for summary judgment—seek summary judgment in their favor 
dismissing Avondale’s crossclaims ( or, as to Uniroyal, third -party claims) against 
them for the same reasons: an absence of causation evidence or any evidence that Mr. 
Bracy was exposed to asbestos in working with any product or equipment of Warren 
Pumps, IP, or Uniroyal . Avondale does not oppose the motions, which identify an 
absence of evidence on an esse ntial element. These Defendants are entitled to 
judgment as a matter of law dismissing Avondale’s crossclaim and third-party claims. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, 
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ unopposed motion s16 for summary 
judgment are GRANTED . Avondale’s crossclaims against Warren Pumps, LLC and 
 
15 See, e.g., ECF Nos. 191-1, 194-1, 196-1. 
16 ECF Nos. 191, 193, 194, and 196 ; see also ECF No. 204 (granting ECF Nos. 195, 197, 198, 
199, 200, 201, 202, 203) and ECF No. 210 (granting ECF Nos. 205, 207). 
16 See ECF Nos. 191, 193, 194, 196. 

7 
 
International Paper Company are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE ; Avondale’s 
third-party claims against Uniroyal Holding, Inc. are DISMISSED WITH 
PREJUDICE; and Plaintiff’s claims against the following Defendants are 
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: Huntington Ingalls Incorporated; International 
Paper Company; Certain Underwriters of Lloyd’s, London; General Electric 
Company; Paramount Global; Foster Wheeler LLC; Taylor -Seidenbach, Inc.; Redco 
Corporation; Carrier Corporation; Elliot Company; ITT, LLC; IMO Industries Inc.; 
Warren Pumps, LLC. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because no claims remain against 
Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, any third -party or crossclaims asserted by 
Huntington Ingalls Incorporated are moot and are therefore DISMISSED 
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, not later than June 3, 2026, counsel for 
all remaining parties shall submit a joint status report as to the remaining claims 
and/or a motion requesting a conference to select pretrial conference and trial dates. 
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 13th day of May, 2026. 
BRANDON S. LONG 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Passage view · GavelSight