Sarjeant v. City of Long Beach
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:24-cv-01216
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Sarjeant v. Foster Wheeler, Judge Chhabria granted Allied Fluid’s summary-judgment motion because Sarjeant’s evidence of exposure was contradictory.
James Sarjeant’s claim against Allied Fluid was affected: the court granted Allied Fluid’s motion for summary judgment after finding that Sarjeant lacked sufficient evidence of exposure to Allied Fluid’s products.
What happened
In James Sarjeant, et al. v. Foster Wheeler LLC, et al., Sarjeant relied on a declaration to show that he had been exposed to an Allied Fluid product. The court’s order does not identify the underlying type of claim.
Sarjeant’s declaration said he had seen Allied Packing & Supply on documents and knew Todd Shipyard ordered gaskets and packing from Allied. But his earlier deposition testimony said he did not know who supplied those materials, had never heard of Allied Fluid or Allied Packing & Supply, and had no other way to refresh his memory.
The court found that the declaration was a sham affidavit because it clearly and unambiguously contradicted his deposition testimony. Judge Vince Chhabria granted Allied Fluid’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that no reasonable jury could find for Sarjeant without other evidence of exposure.
The detailed version
- Sarjeant v. City of Long Beach · No. 3:24-cv-01216
- Vince Chhabria
- Oct. 4, 2024
Background
The order grants Allied Fluid’s motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision entered when the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could rule for the opposing party. The court stated that its ruling assumed familiarity with the facts, legal standards, and parties’ arguments.
Evidence of Exposure
Sarjeant submitted a September 12, 2024 declaration stating that he regularly saw the name Allied Packing & Supply on bills of materials or purchase orders and saw Todd Shipyard ordering gaskets and packing from Allied.
The court compared that declaration with Sarjeant’s May 29, 2024 deposition testimony. During the deposition, Sarjeant said that he did not know what company sold or supplied the gaskets or packing at Todd Shipyard. He also said that he had never heard of Allied Fluid or Allied Packing & Supply and did not associate any products, materials, or services with a company called Allied. When asked whether documents or other people could refresh his memory about working with or around an Allied product, he answered that there were none.
Ruling
The court found that the declaration was a sham affidavit because the inconsistency between it and Sarjeant’s deposition testimony was clear and unambiguous. The court concluded that Sarjeant had no other evidence showing exposure to Allied Fluid’s products, which it identified as an essential element of his claim. Because no reasonable jury could find for Sarjeant on the evidence, the court granted Allied Fluid’s motion for summary judgment.
Effect of the Order
The order resolves Allied Fluid’s motion for summary judgment in its favor. The opinion does not state the broader status of the case or identify the underlying cause of action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.