Young v. ExxonMobil Corp. , 155 F. App'x 798 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
November 30, 2005
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-31211
JOYCE T YOUNG; MALCOLM P WHITLOW, II; SANDRA MCCRAY;
BILLY MOHABI; EDWARD FOREMAN; ET AL.
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
JESSIE H JACKSON; ET AL.
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
HATTIE OKOYE; ET AL.
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
VERONICA POWELL; ET AL.
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
NIADIA BELL; ET AL.
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge
3:00-MD-1
Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this direct civil appeal, Plaintiffs-Appellants challenge
the district court’s granting of summary judgment on behalf of
Defendant-Appellee ExxonMobil Corporation. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
I. Background
This case is a consolidation of five class action suits
removed from state court. The Appellants allege that on or about
November 22, 2000, they suffered a variety of personal injuries and
other losses due to a chemical release at an ExxonMobil plastics
plant in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The district court granted
summary judgment in favor of ExxonMobil on all claims. The court
found that the Appellants failed to submit evidence showing injury,
causation, or breach of duty on the part of ExxonMobil.
The Appellants concede summary judgment on most claims but
appeal the grant of summary judgment on their claims for “fear and
fright, emotional distress and mental anguish, discomfort and
inconvenience.” These claims fall under the umbrella of “emotional
distress.”1 The Appellants argue that the district court erred
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
1
The district court also grouped the claims this way, and
the Appellants admitted that “fear and fright” is part of an
2
when it held that a plaintiff cannot prevail on an emotional
distress claim under Louisiana law without proof of physical
injury. As this case falls within federal diversity jurisdiction,
this Court must apply Louisiana law. See Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins,
304 U.S. 64, 79–80 (1938).
II. Discussion
This Court reviews a district court’s grant of a summary
judgment de novo, applying the same standards as the district
court. Hirras v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 95 F.3d 396, 399 (5th
Cir. 1996). The evidence should be viewed in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party, and the record should not
indicate a genuine issue as to any material fact. Am. Home
Assurance Co. v. United Space Alliance, 378 F.3d 482, 486 (5th Cir.
2004).
A party opposing summary judgment cannot simply rest on the
pleadings but must provide competent evidence that creates a
genuine issue of material fact as to each and every element of the
cause of action. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075
(5th Cir. 1994). The nonmoving party must direct the court to
emotional distress claim. The Appellants argued that
“inconvenience” was a distinct claim, citing Elston v. Valley
Electric Membership Corp., 381 So. 2d 554, 556 (La. Ct. App. 1980),
and Farr v. Johnson, 308 So. 2d 884, 885–86 (La. Ct. App. 1975).
Both of these cases awarded “inconvenience” damages after the
plaintiffs proved property damage. In the present case, the
Appellants offered no evidence of property damage and conceded
summary judgment on the claims that alleged property damage.
3
specific evidence that shows it can prove to a reasonable jury that
it is entitled to a verdict in its favor. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). This is not satisfied by
“some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,” “conclusory
allegations,” “unsubstantiated assertions,” or “only a scintilla of
evidence.” Little, 37 F.3d at 1075 (internal citations omitted).
Any factual controversy will be resolved in the nonmovant’s favor
but only “when both parties have submitted evidence of
contradictory facts.” Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d
521, 525 (5th Cir. 1999).
After a thorough review of the record and the arguments of the
parties, we find that the Appellants fail to point to one piece of
evidence that proves their emotional distress claim. Instead, the
Appellants fashion their arguments in a conclusory fashion based
solely on the pleadings. The district court found that the
Appellants failed to provide evidence on each element of an
emotional distress claim: duty, breach, injury, and causation.
Their burden remains unmet. No affidavit, deposition, document, or
other type of evidence shows that the Appellants even suffered any
type of distress or fear.2 Both parties must submit evidence of
2
The district court provided the Appellants opportunities
for discovery. The court granted summary judgment more than two
years after the case was removed to federal court and after a
magistrate imposed an order that defined specific questions the
Appellants were to answer. The Appellants failed to provide any
answers despite the magistrate’s warning that such a failure likely
would begin the summary judgment process.
4
contradictory facts, Little, 37 F.3d at 1075, and in this case the
Appellants simply have failed to do so.
In most circumstances, plaintiffs claiming emotional distress
in Louisiana must prove that they suffered physical injury. Moresi
v. State Dep’t of Wildlife & Fisheries, 567 So. 2d 1081, 1096 (La.
1990). While Louisiana law allows for some exceptions to the
physical injury requirement, this Court need not determine if the
Appellants fit within those exceptions given the complete absence
of summary judgment proof of emotional distress.
V. CONCLUSION
The Appellants failed to raise a genuine issue of material
fact, and therefore the district court properly granted summary
judgment to ExxonMobil. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.
5