July 10, 2018
The Honorable Gibney, P.J. in the Providence County Superior Court of Rhode Island on June 26, 2016 denied Defendant, Evenheat’s motion for leave to renew its motion for summary judgment in Loretta Belac v. 3M Company, Et. al. In a ruling that essentially prevented Evenheat from attempting to get a bite at the apple for a third time by way of a motion for summary judgment will likely impact how the court will rule on similar issues in the future.
The case stems from an asbestos liability action, initially filed in Rhode Island, where the plaintiff, Lorretta Belac alleges to have been exposed to asbestos-containing products through her home business crafting ceramics. She further claimed her asbestos exposure ultimately resulted in her diagnosis of mesothelioma. Plaintiff filed suit against multiple defendants, including Evenheat, a kiln manufacturing company. Several defendants contested personal jurisdiction in Rhode Island. Evenheat instead filed a motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s lack of product identification and a causal connection.The plaintiff eventually died of her diagnosis of mesothelioma in October 2016 after completing a deposition which was preserved for trial.
Before the court could rule on Evenheat’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff refiled the action in Pennsylvania and sought a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the pending action in Rhode Island against all defendants, including Evenheat. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal on April 20, 2017, pointing out that Evenheat had “actively participated in litigation” and they would be prejudiced in light of their pending motion for summary judgment.The Court then subsequently granted Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal against all defendants, except for Evenheat and another Defendant, Sargent Art, Inc. for similar reasons.
Plaintiff later responded to Evenheat’s motion for summary judgment with an objection and supporting affidavit from the plaintiff’s daughter, Faith Belac Cope. Evenheat disagreeing with the use of the affidavit filed a motion to strike it, to which the Court denied, while also denying Evenheat’s motion for summary judgment on October 19, 2017. That ruling triggered Evenheat’s first motion for relief filed on December 1, 2017, arguing that the affidavit should have been stricken and further contending that the plaintiff did not have sufficient exposure evidence. This was Evenheat’s second bite at the same apple, considering their previous motion for summary judgment which conveyed similar arguments was already denied by the Court. Subsequently, the Court denied Evenheat’s motion for relief.
In the process of Evenheat’s third bite at the apple, Evenheat noticed the deposition of Plaintiff’s daughter, Faith Belac Cope to “expand the record” and then filed a second motion for leave to renew its motion for summary judgment. The same day, Plaintiff filed the its motion to dismiss all claims against Evenheat without prejudice, leaving Evenheat as the last remaining defendant in the Rhode Island case.
Having appropriately applied the “law-of-the-case doctrine” which the Court saw was particularly applicable to successive motions for summary judgment, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice against Evenheat and denied Defendant Evenheat’s motion for leave to renew summary judgment for the second time.Defendant’s should keep in mind that no matter how persuasive the argument is in their mind, attempting to make the same arguments before the Court in different motions will likely result in annoying the Court with a corresponding denial.