Lejeune v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JERRY LEJEUNE CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 23-2477
TAYLOR-SEIDENBACH, INC., ET
AL.
SECTION “O”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court in this asbestos litigation is a motion1 for summary judgment
by Defendant G. Denver and Co., LLC, erroneously sued as Gardner Denver, Inc.
(“Defendant” or “G. Denver and Co., LLC”). Defendant submits that it is entitled to
summary judgment dismissing all claims asserted against it because “there is zero
evidence of exposure to asbestos via any work that Mr. LeJeune did on G. Denver and
Co., LLC PZ 11 Mud Pumps.”2 The motion was noticed for submission on March 5,
2025;3 Plaintiff’s response was due on February 25, 2025. See LOCAL CIVIL RULE 7.5.4
Plaintiff has failed to file a response.5 So, the Court considers the motion unopposed.
The unopposed motion has merit. This asbestos exposure case arises from Mr.
LeJeune’s claim that he developed mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure during his
career, beginning in 1973, as a deckhand and/or driller for various employers a
1 ECF No. 122.
2 ECF No. 122-1 at 2.
3 ECF No. 130.
4 See also ECF No. 130.
5 Though Plaintiff requested and was granted continuances of the submission date of a
different defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 121), the submission date for G. Denver
and Co., LLC’s motion for summary judgment was continued just once to March 5, 2025. Compare ECF
Nos. 138, 146, 148, 162 with ECF No. 130.
Case 2:23-cv-02477-BSL-MBN Document 163 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 5

2
different job sites in Louisiana.6 Defendant G. Denver and Co., LLC was named as an
alleged supplier/distributor/contractor/manufacturer.7 Mr. LeJeune, the only fact
witness deposed in this case, testified that while employed by Loffland Brothers in
1975, he removed and replaced gaskets on PZ 11 mud pumps manufactured by G.
Denver and Co., LLC.8 According to Mr. LeJeune’s testimony and expert evidence,
the gaskets Mr. LeJeune manipulated on the G. Denver pumps were either paper or
rubber gaskets, neither of which contained asbestos.9
G. Denver and Co., LLC moves for summary judgment on the ground that
Plaintiff cannot satisfy his burden of proof such that G. Denver and Co. LLC is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there is no admissible evidence that
(1) Mr. LeJeune ever worked with or around any asbestos-containing gaskets on G.
Denver and Co., LLC equipment; or that (2) Mr. LeJeune alleged exposure to any
such product was a substantial factor in the development of his mesothelioma.10
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. CI V . 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
6 ECF No. 1-1 Ex. A.
7 Id.
8 ECF No. 122-1 at 2 n. 3 (citing LeJeune’s deposition transcript, Exhibit A).
9 ECF No. 122-1 at 2 n. 4 (citing Graham Expert Report, Exhibit B).
10 Id.
Case 2:23-cv-02477-BSL-MBN Document 163 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 5

3
outcome of the suit.’” Id. (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). “[W]here the
nonmovant bears the burden of proof at trial,” as Plaintiff11 does on his 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 material fact warranting trial.” Lindsey v.
Sears Roebuck & Co., 16 F.3d 616, 618 (5th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted).
Defendant is entitled to summary judgment given the absence of evidence that
Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos products manufactured, sold, or supplied by G.
Denver and Co, LLC. As a threshold matter, G. Denver and Co., LLC’s statement of
uncontested facts12 is deemed admitted. See Local Rule 56.2. Uncontroverted, these
facts entitle Defendant to judgment as a matter of law because there is no evidence
that Mr. LeJeune sustained any asbestos exposure from any materials alleged to have
been located on G. Denver and Co., LLC PZ11 pumps that Plaintiff worked on while
employed at Loffland Brothers from 1975 until the mid-1980s.
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). In a case with multiple alleged causes of injury, the
plaintiff must prove that a specific defendant’s conduct was a cause-in-fact, i.e., that
11 Mr. LeJeune has died, ECF No. 157. His wife and children have been substituted as the
plaintiffs. See ECF No. 160.
12 ECF No. 122-2.
Case 2:23-cv-02477-BSL-MBN Document 163 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 5

4
it was a substantial factor in generating the plaintiff’s harm. See id. Defendant has
demonstrated that there is no evidence in the summary judgment record that
Plaintiff was exposed to a particular asbestos-containing product attributable to it.
Mr. LeJeune’s only recollection regarding work with Defendant’s products exclusively
concerned paper or rubber gaskets—products that did not contain asbestos.13
Defendant thus points to an absence of evidence that Mr. LeJeune worked with or
around asbestos-containing materials while working on G. Denver and Co., LLC PZ
11 Mud Pumps, see Lindsey, 16 F.3d at 618 (citations omitted).
The burden thus shifts to Plaintiff to “demonstrat[e] by competent summary
judgment proof that there is an issue of material fact warranting trial.” Id. (internal
citations omitted). Plaintiff fails to carry that burden. Plaintiff fails to present
summary-judgment evidence establishing that Defendant’s products exposed him to
asbestos. So, there is no genuine dispute as to the absence of any evidence linking
Plaintiff’s asbestos exposure to Defendant’s products. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot
prove his asbestos exposure claim against G. Denver and Co., LLC, which is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law dismissing Plaintiff’s claims.
13ECF No. 122-1 at 4-5.
Case 2:23-cv-02477-BSL-MBN Document 163 Filed 01/09/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s unopposed motion14 for summary
judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant G. Denver and Co.,
LLC are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 9th day of January, 2026.
BRANDON S. LONG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14 ECF No. 122.
Case 2:23-cv-02477-BSL-MBN Document 163 Filed 01/09/26 Page 5 of 5