The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:20-cv-00341-MR-WCM
GREGORY R. BANTIN and JULIE L. )
BANTIN, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) MEMORANDUM OF
vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER
)
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS )
CORPORATION, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ “Motion for
Summary Judgment Regarding Defendant Atwood & Morrill’s Affirmative
Defenses” [Doc. 101] and Defendant Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc.’s,
individually and as successor to Atwood & Morrill Co., (“Atwood & Morrill”)
Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 102].
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 24, 2020, the Plaintiffs Gregory R. Bantin and Julie L.
Bantin filed this action against a total of fifteen defendants alleging that Mr.
Bantin contracted mesothelioma from breathing asbestos dust during the
course of his service in the United States Navy from approximately 1965 to
1974. [Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 35-40]. In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert six causes
of action: (1) defective design; (2) failure to warn; (3) breach of implied
warranty; (4) gross negligence and willful, wanton, and reckless conduct; (5)
conspiracy, against Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.; and (6) loss
of consortium. [Id. at ¶¶ 41-87].
Over the course of the litigation, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
their claims against several of the named Defendants. [See Docs. 75
(Aurora Pump Co.); 77 (Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.); 79 (Hopeman
Brothers, Inc.); 80 (Metalclad Insulation, LLC); 93 (FMC Corp.); 95 (McNally
Industries, Inc.); 98 (Armstrong International, Inc.); 99 (Velan Calve Corp.);
111 (The William Powel Co.); 113 (Air & Liquid Systems Corp.); 115 (Crane
Co.)]. On December 3, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a “Motion for Summary
Judgment Regarding Defendant Atwood & Morrill’s Affirmative Defenses.”
[Doc. 101]. In turn, Defendant Atwood & Morrill filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment regarding all of the Plaintiffs’ claims. [Doc. 102].
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment shall be granted “if the movant shows that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A factual dispute is
genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict
for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A fact is material only if it might
affect the outcome of the suit under governing law. Id.
The movant has the “initial responsibility of informing the district court
of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.
Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (internal citations omitted).
Once this initial burden is met, the burden shifts to the nonmoving
party. The nonmoving party “must set forth specific facts showing that there
is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 322 n.3. The nonmoving party may not
rely upon mere allegations or denials of allegations in his pleadings to defeat
a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 324. Rather, the nonmoving party
must oppose a proper summary judgment motion with citation to
“depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations …, admissions, interrogatory answers, or other
materials” on the record. See id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(a). Courts “need
not accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or
arguments.” Eastern Shore Mkt. Inc. v. J.D. Assoc.’s, LLP, 213 F.3d 175,
180 (4th Cir. 2000). The nonmoving party must present sufficient evidence
from which “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; accord Sylvia Dev. Corp. v. Calvert Cnty., Md.,
48 F.3d 810, 818 (4th Cir. 1995).
When ruling on a summary judgment motion, a court must view the
evidence and any inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. Where, as here, the
parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court must
consider “each motion separately on its own merits ‘to determine whether
either of the parties deserves judgment as a matter of law.’” Rossignol v.
Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 523 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Philip Morris Inc. v.
Harshbarger, 122 F.3d 58, 62 n.4 (1st Cir. 1997)).
III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1
The Plaintiff Gregory R. Bantin was diagnosed with mesothelioma on
August 28, 2020. [Preserved Trial Deposition of Gregory R. Bantin (“Bantin
Trial Dep.”), Doc. 107-1 at 10:23; Doc. 107-20 at 15].
Mr. Bantin enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1965. [Bantin Trial Dep., Doc.
107-1 at 13:7-23]. After enlisting, Mr. Bantin completed eight weeks of basic
1 “At the summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686
(2007). This summary of facts is presented for the analysis of Defendant Atwood &
Morrill’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Thus, the facts are viewed in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiffs.
training followed by an additional four months of instruction in machinist
school. [Id. at 13:24-17:9]. There, Mr. Bantin trained to become a machinist
mate and operate various pieces of equipment on U.S. Navy ships. [Id. at
15:23-17:9].
In February of 1966, Mr. Bantin was assigned to the U.S.S. Eaton,
where he remained for approximately twenty-six months. [see id. at 45:4-6;
see also Discovery Deposition of Gregory R. Bantin (“Bantin Disc. Dep.”),
Doc. 107-2 at 77:19-24]. The U.S.S. Eaton is a Fletcher-class destroyer built
in 1942 at Bath Iron Works, a shipyard in Maine that works exclusively on
U.S. Navy Ships. [Bantin Trial Dep., Doc. 107-1 at 16:6-8; see also Moore
Report, Doc. 107-3 at 7, 19]. The U.S.S. Eaton is approximately 300 to 350
feet long and has two boiler rooms and two engine rooms. [Bantin Trial Dep.,
Doc. 107-1 at 18:15-16]. During Mr. Bantin’s service on the U.S.S. Eaton,
the ship sailed for approximately one or two weeks at a time before returning
to port. [Id. at 33:17-34:8].
While he was assigned to the U.S.S. Eaton, Mr. Bantin served as a
fireman, and he was responsible for cleaning, sweeping, and reading
gauges. [Id. at 18:19-24]. Mr. Bantin also “live[d]” in the bilges, an area in
the bottom of the ship that would fill with water, and he would clean and
scrape the area under the ship’s condenser. [Id. at 19:1-20:22].
Mr. Bantin primarily served as a machinist assigned to the U.S.S.
Eaton’s after engine room. [Id. at 20:23-21:1]. Mr. Bantin did some work in
the main engine room, but that work was limited to “reading dials and stuff.”
[Id. at 21:10-20]. The after engine room is located in the last third of the ship,
behind the main engine room, and sits below the water line. [Id. at 21:2-23].
The after engine room is approximately 50 feet long, with a four-foot-wide
pathway. [Id. at 22:5-15]. The after engine room did not have air
conditioning. [Id. at 22:25-23:1]. Instead, the after engine room had force
draft blowers that would blow dust around the room. [Id. at 22:25-25:5]. Mr.
Bantin and the other sailors assigned to the after engine room were “like a
little family,” [id. at 25:22-26:18], and Mr. Bantin would spend approximately
12 to 16 hours a day in the after engine room, [id. at 45:11-15]. When the
U.S.S. Eaton was in port, Mr. Bantin and other crew members would
sometimes sleep in the after engine room. [Id. at 26:3-14].
In the after engine room, part of Mr. Bantin’s assignment included
maintaining pumps and valves. [Id. at 28:4-41:22]. Mr. Bantin placed
lubrication on valve stems to ensure that they opened and closed properly.
[Id. at 25:10-32:10]. Mr. Bantin and other crew members “didn’t have to
really take any [valves] apart,” but Mr. Bantin does recall replacing the
gaskets and working on flanges near the throttle board of a main steam line.
[Id. at 32:4-33:14].
While the U.S.S. Eaton was at sea, Mr. Bantin ensured that packing in
pumps was not leaking. [Id. at 28:4-11]. At times, Mr. Bantin had to replace
packing in pumps in the after engine room while the ship was running. [Id.
at 28:12-29:12]. Mr. Bantin also replaced gaskets in cold lines and essential
equipment while the ship was running. [Id. at 30:6-20]. However, Mr. Bantin
did not perform maintenance work on packing associated with valves while
the U.S.S. Eaton was at sea. [Id. at 33:12-16].
While the U.S.S. Eaton was in port, Mr. Bantin does not recall breaking
apart pumps, breaking apart valves, or working on the interior components
of valves. [Bantin Disc. Dep., Doc. 107-2 at 56:8-16, 57:4-10]. Mr. Bantin
does recall removing packing in pumps as part of a preventative
maintenance schedule while the ship was in port. [Id. at 57:21-58:20].
Additionally, when gaskets in the after engine room equipment needed to be
replaced, they were primarily replaced while the U.S.S. Eaton was in port
because the equipment was too hot to replace gaskets while the ship was
running. [Bantin Trial Dep., Doc. 107-1 at 30:10-15].
To replace gaskets on pumps and valves, Mr. Bantin needed to “break”
the flange, remove the old gasket, and clean the flange with a wire brush.
[Id. at 36:5-40:6, 41:14-22]. On steam lines, Mr. Bantin and other crew
members used flexitallic metallic gaskets that were pre-cut to the proper size.
[Id. at 40:7-41:13]. When performing his maintenance work, Mr. Bantin was
given a new gasket and told it was for a specific piece of equipment. [Id. at
41:3-13].
While Mr. Bantin completed maintenance tasks in the after engine
room, other firemen and machinists also performed the same types of tasks
as Mr. Bantin. [Id. at 44:10-45:3]. Crew members in the after engine room
performed maintenance tasks without gloves, respirators, or other forms of
protection. [Id. at 29:14-20]. Mr. Bantin does not recall who manufactured
the valves that he worked on or around while assigned to the U.S.S. Eaton’s
after engine room. [Id. at 42:25-44:9].
In opposition to Defendant Atwood and Morrill’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, the Plaintiffs have presented the expert opinion of Captain Arnold
Moore. Captain Moore graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1968,
and he focused on shipboard engineering, repair, and overhaul of U.S. Navy
ships during his career. [Moore Report, Doc. 107-3 at 4]. Later, Captain
Moore obtained a master’s degree in naval architecture and a professional
degree in ocean engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. [Id.]. Captain Moore has twenty-six years of experience as a
naval officer and engineer. [Id. at 6]. Captain Moore examined ship records
of the ships Mr. Bantin served aboard while in the U.S. Navy as well as other
documents recording the types of equipment used on those ships. [Id. at 31-
33]. Captain Moore concluded that valves manufactured by Defendant
Atwood and Morrill were used in the engine rooms on the U.S.S. Eaton. [See
id. at 10, 15-16, 19]. In his report, Captain Moore states that:
Gibbs and Cox letters dated 5 November 1941 and
15 December 1942 record Atwood and Morrill
manufactured steam pressure regulating and
unloading valves used with the main propulsion
turbines, main condensers and auxiliary condensers
installed in the engine rooms on EATON. Atwood
and Morrill drawing 2312-F depicts 2 inch diameter
balanced valves installed in condensate vent and
drain and feed pump recirculating systems in the
engine rooms on EATON. These valves utilized
plastic non-metallic packing (MIL-P-17303) to seal
valves stems. Military Specification MIL-P-17303
records all the types of plastic non-metallic packing
defined by this specification (Navy symbols 1106,
1108, 1109 and 1111) contain asbestos.
***
The following paragraphs present sales records for
asbestos repair components to the Navy by
companies that manufactured machinery installed on
EATON. This equipment was identified earlier in this
report.
An Atwood and Morrill order acknowledgment with an
order date of 20 May 1968 records Atwood and
Morrill sold four asbestos gaskets (6 ¾ inch OD x 6
inch ID, 1/16 inch thick) to Bath Iron Works. Bath Iron
Works builds and overhauls Navy ships only.
[Id. at 15-16, 19].
Further, Captain Moore states that packing and gaskets were selected
for U.S. Navy ships “based on the fluids being handled and the temperature
and pressure ranges in which this machinery would operate,” and “[o]nce a
manufacturer chose a specific type of asbestos-containing packing or
gasket, that packing or gasket was normally utilized for the life of the
machinery.” [Id. at 10]. Specifically, Captain Moore states that:
Finding an acceptable non-asbestos substitute was
very difficult and not normally attempted before the
Navy and industry began to try to develop substitutes
for asbestos packing and gaskets in the late 1970s
and early 1980s. The following documents prepared
by Navy machinery and packing suppliers illustrate
this point:
***
e. An Atwood and Morrill Technical Bulletin dated
August 2010 states “[v]alves designed for asbestos
packing rings required six or more rings to get
effective sealing. Modern packing systems do not
have the same compressibility that asbestos did and
do not work as intended in these older valves.”
[Id.].
The Plaintiffs have also presented the prior deposition testimony of
Samuel Shields, a corporate representative of Defendant Atwood and Morrill.
[Shields 2004 Dep., Doc. 107-4; Shields 2007 Dep., Doc. 107-5; Shields
2009 Dep., Doc. 107-6]. In those prior cases, Mr. Shields testified that some
of the valves manufactured by Defendant Atwood and Morrill contained
asbestos gaskets and packing beginning in the 1930s. [Shields 2004 Dep.,
Doc. 107-4 at 41:19-42:11, 61:3-17; Shields 2007 Dep., Doc. 107-5 at 24:22-
25, 59:6-13]. Defendant Atwood and Morrill continued to manufacture valves
containing asbestos gaskets and packing until 1985. [Shields 2007 Dep.,
Doc. 107-5 at 24:22-25]. Additionally, some valves manufactured by
Defendant Atwood and Morrill contained an asbestos insulation board.
[Shields 2009 Dep., Doc. 107-6 at 38:19-39:7]. Defendant Atwood and
Morrill also sold replacement gaskets and packing for use in its valves,
published product manuals instructing that asbestos replacement parts be
used, and sometimes supplied asbestos replacement parts at the time of an
initial sale when requested by the customer. [Shields 2004 Dep., Doc. 107-
4 at 58:10-59:8, 220:5-221:1; Shields 2007 Dep., Doc. 107-5 at 25:6-12,
26:2-8].
Mr. Bantin completed his service on the U.S.S. Eaton in April of 1968.
[Bantin Disc. Dep., Doc. 107-2 at 76:17-78:1]. From late 1968 until August
of 1969, Mr. Bantin served on the U.S.S. Arlington. [Id. at 77:5-18; Bantin
Trial Dep., Doc. 107-1 at 53:18-21]. There, Mr. Bantin was assigned to the
ship’s air conditioning plant, and he would remove, clean, and replace air
filters in ten or fifteen places around the ship. [Bantin Trial Dep., Doc. 107-
1 at 54:8-61:12]. In September of 1969, Mr. Bantin was assigned to the
U.S.S. Inchon. [Id. at 61:15-22]. However, because the Inchon was under
construction at that time, Mr. Bantin did not spend any time aboard the U.S.S.
Inchon during his assignment. [Id. at 61:23-63:11]. Mr. Bantin did not
perform any work on valves while assigned to the U.S.S. Arlington or the
U.S.S. Inchon. [Bantin Disc. Dep., Doc. 107-2 at 69:18-70:1]. Following his
assignment to the U.S.S. Inchon, Mr. Bantin served as an instructor at a
correctional facility located in Great Lakes, Illinois until he was honorably
discharged from the U.S. Navy in May of 1974. [Bantin Trial Dep., Doc. 107-
1 at 64:8-66:17].
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Atwood & Morrill’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant Atwood & Morrill argues that it is entitled to summary
judgment on all of the Plaintiffs’ claims because “there is no evidence that
the Plaintiff, Gregory R. Bantin, worked with or around a product for which
Atwood & Morrill is responsible.” [Doc. 102 at 1]. Defendant Atwood & Morrill
further argues that “[t]o the extent such a product is identified, there is no
evidence that Mr. Bantin worked with or around such a product with the
requisite frequency and proximity, as required by controlling law, such that it
could be considered a substantial contributing factor in causing his disease.”
[Id. at 1-2].
The parties agree that maritime law applies to the Plaintiffs’ claims
against Defendant Atwood & Morrill. [Doc. 103 at 4; Doc. 107 at 15]. The
Supreme Court has held “that maritime law applies when 1) a tort occurs on
navigable waters, (the ‘location test’) and 2) the incident could have a
‘potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce’ and the ‘activity giving
rise to the incident has a substantial relationship to traditional maritime
activity’ (the ‘connection test’).” Yates v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp., No. 5:12-
cv-752-FL, 2014 WL 348301 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 31, 2014) (quoting Jerome B.
Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 534, 115 S.
Ct. 1043, 130 L.Ed.2d 1024 (1995)). Maritime law also applies “to torts
occurring on a ship docked at a marina located on a navigable waterway.”
Id. (citing Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 363, 110 S. Ct. 2892, 111 L.Ed.2d
292 (1990)). Further, asbestos exposure “which occurs aboard a ship on
navigable waters satisfies the connection test, because it poses a danger of
injury to other crew members which could affect maritime commerce.” Id.
Accordingly, maritime law applies to tort claims arising from asbestos
exposure aboard ships on navigable waters or docked at shipyards located
on a navigable waterway. See id.; see also Deuber v. Asbestos Corp., No.
2:10-cv-78931-ER, 2011 WL 6415339, at *1 n1 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2011);
Lambert v. Babcock & Wilcox, Co., 70 F. Supp. 2d 877, 884 (S.D. Ind. 1999);
John Crane, Inc. v. Jones, 274 Va. 581, 588, 650 S.E.2d 851, 854 (2007).
Therefore, maritime law applies to the Plaintiffs’ claims arising from Mr.
Bantin’s service aboard U.S. Navy ships.
The Fourth Circuit has not formulated a standard for establishing
causation in cases involving asbestos exposure specifically in the maritime
context. However, the Sixth Circuit has instructed that, under maritime law,
a plaintiff must show “for each defendant, that (1) he was exposed to the
defendant’s product, and (2) the product was a substantial factor in causing
the injury he suffered.” Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust, 424 F.3d
488, 492 (6th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds by Air & Liquid Sys.
Corp. v. DeVries, -- U.S. --, 139 S. Ct. 986, 203 L.Ed.2d 373 (2019). In
contrast, “a mere showing that defendant’s product was present somewhere
at plaintiff’s place of work is insufficient.” Id. “Rather, where a plaintiff relies
on proof of exposure to establish that a product was a substantial factor in
causing injury, the plaintiff must show a high enough level of exposure that
an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more
than conjectural.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The standard articulated by the Sixth Circuit for establishing causation
under maritime law is also consistent with the “frequency, regularity, and
proximity” test espoused by the Fourth Circuit in Lohrmann. See Lohrmann
v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156, 1163 (4th Cir. 1986). There, the
Fourth Circuit held that, to support a reasonable inference of substantial
causation based on circumstantial evidence, a plaintiff must present
“evidence of exposure to a specific product on a regular basis over some
extended period of time in proximity to where the plaintiff actually worked.”
Id. at 1162-63. Accordingly, a plaintiff “must prove more than a casual or
minimum contact with the product containing asbestos in order to hold [the
defendant] liable.” Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 69 F.3d 712,
716 (4th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The failure to
specifically identify a defendant’s presence warrants a grant of summary
judgment.” Anger v. Daniel Int’t Corp., No. 3:98-cv-220, 2007 WL 57769, at
*4-5 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 5, 2007) (applying both Lindstrom and Lohrmann to
grant summary judgment for the defendant where the plaintiff, who alleged
that he was exposed to asbestos while employed at a fibers plant, “failed to
present evidence of exposure to asbestos as a result of conduct by” the
defendant).
Here, the forecast of evidence taken in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiffs is insufficient for a reasonable juror to conclude that Mr. Bantin was
exposed to an asbestos-containing product manufactured by Defendant
Atwood and Morrill. Indeed, Mr. Bantin admitted that he did not perform any
maintenance work on valves while assigned to the U.S.S. Arlington or the
U.S.S. Inchon, [Bantin Disc. Dep., Doc. 107-2 at 69:18-70:1], and Mr. Bantin
cannot recall who manufactured the valves he worked on or around while
assigned to the U.S.S. Eaton, [Bantin Trial Dep., Doc. 107-1 at 42:25-44:9].
The only evidence the Plaintiffs have presented that valves
manufactured by Defendant Atwood and Morrill were used on the U.S.S.
Eaton is the expert report prepared by Captain Moore. There, Captain Moore
found letters dated November 5, 1941 and December 5, 1942 stating that
asbestos-containing valves manufactured by Defendant Atwood and Morrill
were installed in the engine rooms on the U.S.S. Eaton. [Moore Report, Doc.
107-3 at 15-16]. Captain Moore also found an order acknowledgment form
dated May 20, 1968 stating that Defendant Atwood and Morrill sold four
asbestos gaskets to Bath Iron Works, a shipyard that works only on U.S.
Navy ships. [Id. at 19]. Captain Moore further explained that finding suitable
non-asbestos replacement parts “was very difficult,” and, therefore, “[o]nce
a manufacturer chose a specific type of asbestos-containing packing or
gasket, that packing or gasket was normally utilized for the life of the
machinery.” [Id. at 10] (emphasis added).
Captain Moore’s report is insufficient to show that valves manufactured
by Defendant Atwood and Morrill were used in the U.S.S. Eaton’s after
engine room at the same time that Mr. Bantin was present. Mr. Bantin was
assigned to the U.S.S. Eaton from February of 1966 to April of 1968. [Bantin
Trial Dep., Doc. 107-1 at 45:4-6; Bantin Disc. Dep., Doc. 107-2 at 76:17-
78:1]. Thus, Mr. Bantin began his service aboard the U.S.S. Eaton over
twenty years after the November 5, 1941 and December 5, 1942 letters
referenced in the Moore Report, and Mr. Bantin completed his assignment
one month prior to the May 20, 1968 sales record. The conclusion that Mr.
Bantin was exposed to asbestos-containing valves manufactured by
Defendant Atwood and Morrill because such valves were present on the
U.S.S. Eaton twenty years prior to Mr. Bantin’s assignment and valve
replacement parts were sold to a shipyard that worked on U.S. Navy ships
three months after Mr. Bantin’s assignment is, at best, speculative.2
Therefore, because the forecast of evidence fails to establish a nexus
between Mr. Bantin and an asbestos-containing product manufactured by
2 Notably, there is also no evidence in the record to indicate that the four asbestos-
containing gaskets sold to Bath Iron Works on May 20, 1968 were used aboard the U.S.S.
Eaton, rather than a different U.S. Navy ship.
Defendant Atwood and Morrill, Defendant Atwood and Morrill’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is granted.
B. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
The Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment regarding various
affirmative defenses asserted by Defendant Atwood & Morrill. [Doc. 101 at
1]. The Court having determined that Defendant Atwood & Morrill’s Motion
for Summary Judgment should be granted, the Plaintiffs’ motion is denied as
moot.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendant Weir Valves &
Controls USA, Inc’s, individually and as successor to Atwood & Morrill Co.,
Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 102] is GRANTED, and the Plaintiffs’
claims against Defendant Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc. are hereby
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary
Judgment Regarding Defendant Atwood & Morrill’s Affirmative Defenses”
[Doc. 101] is DENIED as moot.
Signed: June 27, 2022
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18