Sarjeant v. City of Long Beach
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:24-cv-01216
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Sarjeant v. Vanderbilt, Judge Chhabria granted summary judgment on DAP, denied it on Kaiser products, and deferred fraud and punitive damages.
James Sarjeant and the other plaintiffs, Vanderbilt, and the claims concerning Sarjeant’s alleged exposure to Vanderbilt products.
What happened
In Sarjeant v. Foster Wheeler LLC, Vanderbilt asked for summary judgment concerning James Sarjeant’s exposure to its products and whether that exposure caused his mesothelioma. The court considered Sarjeant’s evidence that he used several Kaiser Gypsum compounds and textures.
The court found genuine disputes of fact about whether Sarjeant used those Kaiser Gypsum products and whether Vanderbilt talc was used to make them. The court said a jury, rather than the judge, must evaluate the evidence and Sarjeant’s credibility.
Judge Chhabria granted the motion concerning Sarjeant’s use of a DAP product, denied it concerning several Kaiser Gypsum products, and deferred the fraud and punitive-damages claims. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file a short supplemental brief based on later corporate depositions.
The detailed version
- Sarjeant v. City of Long Beach · No. 3:24-cv-01216
- Vince Chhabria
- Oct. 2, 2024
Background
The order addresses Vanderbilt’s motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute of important fact requires a jury’s decision. The court considered Sarjeant’s use of a DAP product, several Kaiser Gypsum products, and the fraud and punitive-damages claims.
Disputes about Kaiser Gypsum products
The court found a genuine dispute about whether Sarjeant used Kaiser Gypsum premix joint compound, premix topping compound, Cover-Tex wall texture, and K-Spray ceiling texture. Sarjeant submitted a declaration identifying those products. Vanderbilt argued that the declaration contradicted Sarjeant’s earlier testimony and should be treated as an improper “sham affidavit.” The court rejected that argument at this stage, finding that any inconsistency was not clear and unambiguous. The court said Sarjeant’s credibility was for a jury to decide.
The court also found a genuine dispute about whether Vanderbilt’s talc was used to make the Kaiser Gypsum products Sarjeant said he worked with. Vanderbilt submitted evidence that its talc mined in New York would not be used by Kaiser Gypsum in California and that Pfizer was Kaiser’s main West Coast supplier. Sarjeant submitted evidence that Vanderbilt acquired Western Talc Company, which mined talc in California, and that Vanderbilt’s Westal talc was used to produce the identified Kaiser Gypsum products at California plants, including a Santa Ana plant serving Southern California. The court concluded that a jury must evaluate this evidence.
Fraud and punitive damages
The court stated that, on the current record, there was no evidence from which a jury could find fraud or award punitive damages. But Sarjeant had not yet deposed Vanderbilt or Kaiser Gypsum’s corporate representatives when the motion was filed. The court stated that those depositions should have occurred and allowed the plaintiffs to file a supplemental brief of no more than five pages addressing any deposition evidence supporting the fraud and punitive-damages arguments. The supplemental filing was due October 4, 2024, and had to include relevant transcript portions and enough surrounding pages to provide context.
Ruling
The motion was granted with respect to Sarjeant’s use of a DAP product and denied with respect to Sarjeant’s use of several Kaiser Gypsum products. The court deferred the motion with respect to the fraud and punitive-damages claims. Judge Chhabria entered the order on October 2, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.