Knapp v. FAG Bearings, LLC
| Decision Date | 23 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:21-cv-05035-MDH |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
| Parties | SPENCER KNAPP and ELIZABETH YGARTUA, Plaintiffs, v. FAG BEARINGS, LLC, Defendants. |
Before the Court is Defendant FAG Bearings LLC's (“FAG Bearings” or “Defendant”) motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 54). For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is GRANTED, and summary judgment is entered in favor of Defendant FAG Bearings.
Plaintiffs Spencer Knapp (“Plaintiff”) and Elizabeth Ygartua, who are husband and wife, filed their Complaint on February 5, 2021. ¶¶ 1, 79. Plaintiffs allege that FAG Bearings, LLC (“FAG Bearings”) used trichloroethylene (“TCE”) at its ball bearing manufacturing facility in Joplin, Missouri from 1975 to 1981 ¶¶ 22-23, and that FAG Bearings released TCE in or around its facility during that time, ¶ 26. Plaintiffs further allege that Knapp was exposed to TCE released by FAG Bearings from his conception in 1985 until September 1995 ¶¶ 28, 44, and that he developed multiple sclerosis (“MS”) as a result, ¶ 46. Plaintiffs claim Strict Liability (Count I), Negligence (Counts II and III) Punitive Damages (Count IV), and Loss of Consortium (Count V). ¶¶ 49-80.
At the time Knapp brought this action, he had known for over two decades that he may have been exposed to TCE used or released by FAG Bearings. Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 17:9-12; 17:16- 18:6; 61:15-62:18. Knapp's parents were parties to an earlier case brought against FAG Bearings related to TCE contamination. Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 17:21-18:3.
Knapp has lived in Texas since January 2013. Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 26:23-27:2. Knapp was diagnosed with MS on May 10, 2017. Ex. D, Spencer Knapp-PPR-000062-65, marked as Dep. Ex. 7; Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 98:5-22. Knapp was in Dallas, Texas when he received his MS diagnosis. Ex. D, Spencer Knapp-PPR-000062-65, marked as Dep. Ex. 7; Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 94:3-10.
Knapp experienced symptoms underlying his MS diagnosis in an approximately two-week period preceding that diagnosis. On April 23, 2017, Knapp experienced left-side numbness. Ex. E, Spencer Knapp-PPR-000188, marked as Dep. Ex. 3; Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 85:19-23. Knapp was in Texas at that time. Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 86:11-89:24. On April 28, 2017, Knapp and Ygartua had a failed sexually intimate experience purportedly resulting in part from Knapp's MS symptoms. Ex. C, Pl. Elizabeth Ygartua's Resp. to Def.'s Interrog. No. 14; Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 81:4-7; 81:19- 82:6. Knapp was in Texas at that time. Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 80:6-81:3. On April 29, 2017, Knapp experienced spreading numbness in his left arm and left leg. Ex. F, Spencer Knapp-PPR-000426- 30; Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 91:15-19; 92:11-20. Knapp was in Texas at that time. Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 82:13-83:2.
These symptoms led Knapp to visit the Baylor University Medical Center emergency room on April 29, 2017. Ex. G, Spencer Knapp-PPR-000421-25, marked as Dep. Ex. 5; Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 91:15-19; 92:11-20. That visit was in Dallas, Texas. Ex. G, Spencer Knapp-PPR-000421- 25, marked as Dep. Ex. 5; Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 91:15-19. In addition to his April 29, 2017 emergency room visit, Knapp visited a doctor on April 26, 2017. Ex. E, Spencer Knapp-PPR-000188-92, marked as Dep. Ex. 3; Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 87:1-4. That visit was in Dallas, Texas. Ex. E, Spencer Knapp-PPR-000188-192, marked as Dep. Ex. 3; Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 87:1-89:20; Ex. H, Spencer Knapp-PPR-000066-68, marked as Dep. Ex. 6. Knapp also visited a doctor on May 2, 2017. Ex. H, Spencer Knapp-PPR-000066-68, marked as Dep. Ex. 6; Ex. I, Spencer Knapp-PPR-000217-18; Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 93:13-95:1. That visit was in Dallas, Texas. Ex. I, Spencer Knapp-PPR-000217-18; Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 94:3-10.
Before the onset of the above-described symptoms in late April 2017, Knapp occasionally experienced sporadic, short-term sensory events. For example, Knapp had blurriness in one eye in 2014. Ex. D, Spencer Knapp-PPR-000062, marked as Dep. Ex. 7; Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 66:13-69:13. Knapp was in Dallas, Texas when he experienced that blurriness. Ex. B, Pl. Spencer Knapp's Resp. to Def.'s Interrog. No. 7; Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 66:13-68:22. And in the year preceding his MS diagnosis, Knapp experienced intermittent numbness in one or more of his extremities. Ex. H, Spencer Knapp-PPR-000066, marked as Dep. Ex. 6; Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 70:14-71:18; 96:8-97:1. Knapp cannot recall significant details concerning these events. Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 70:14-71:18; 96:8-16. But Knapp was in Texas when they occurred. Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 70:22-71:18; 96:18- 20. Knapp cannot recall such an event occurring anywhere other than in Texas. Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 70:22-71:18.
On April 28 2017, Ygartua suffered an asserted injury purportedly stemming from Knapp's own asserted injury, when Knapp and Ygartua had a failed sexually intimate experience purportedly resulting in part from Knapp's MS symptoms. Ex. C, Pl. Elizabeth Ygartua's Resp. to Def.'s Interrog. No. 14; Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 81:4-7; 81:19-82:6. Ygartua was in Dallas, Texas at that time. Ex. C, Pl. Elizabeth Ygartua's Resp. to Def.'s Interrog. No. 14; Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 80:6- 81:3.
In December 2017, Knapp's brother sent him an email concerning a personal injury suit brought by another plaintiff, Jodelle Kirk, against FAG Bearings in connection with FAG Bearings' historical use or release of TCE. Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 15:10-17:15; 102:19-24. That email “about the [Kirk] case” caused Knapp to contact and then retain a lawyer. Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 15:12-16:16; 20:17-21:24. Knapp was “one of . . . two places, home or work, ” and thus in Texas, when he received the email from his brother. Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 122:8-15. On August 16, 2018, Knapp's brother sent Knapp an email titled “I think you should sue FAG Bearings.” Ex. J, Email from Bradley Knapp to Spencer Knapp (Aug. 16, 2018).1 That email contained links to articles suggesting a purported connection between TCE exposure and autoimmune diseases. Ex. J, Email from Bradley Knapp to Spencer Knapp (Aug. 16, 2018). Knapp was in Texas when he received that email. See Ex. A, Knapp Dep. 122:8-15; see also n.4, infra.
Knapp himself identified a purported causal link when he “research[ed]” articles and “found other articles that had described a correlation between TCE exposure and autoimmune disease development later in life.” Id. 155:13-16. He thus thought the connection “seemed logical.” Id. 155:16-19. Knapp retained his attorneys in late 2017 or early 2018. Mot. Ex. A. 123:10-19; 21:1-23:8. Knapp and his counsel retained a putative expert to opine on causation of Knapp's injuries. This report was conducted by medical doctor Dr. Norbert Belz, described by Plaintiff as “an evaluator”, and concluded that Knapp's MS was contributed to be caused by his TCE exposure. This report was completed on November 19, 2019.
“Summary judgment is proper where, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Watts v. State of Missouri Dep't of Corr., No. 2:18-CV-04076-MDH, 2021 WL 4071870, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 7, 2021) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Reich v. ConAgra, Inc., 987 F.2d 1357, 1359 (8th Cir. 1993)). “Where there is no dispute of material fact and reasonable fact finders could not find in favor of the nonmoving party, summary judgment is appropriate.” Id. (quoting Quinn v. St. Louis Cnty., 653 F.3d 745, 750 (8th Cir. 2011)). “Initially, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). “If the movant meets the initial step, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to “‘set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'” Id. (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). “To satisfy this burden, the nonmoving party must ‘do more than simply show there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.'” Id. (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)).
Neither party argues the substance of Plaintiffs' claims. Instead, the pending motion rests entirely on whether Plaintiffs'' Complaint is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
Missouri procedural law bars any claim that would be time-barred in the jurisdiction where it originated. The Court must only determine where the claim originated-meaning where the plaintiff physically was when his claim became objectively capable of ascertainment. Missouri procedural law applies. When “sitting in diversity and assessing statutes of limitations, federal courts apply the law of the forum state.” Burdess v. Cottrell, Inc., 533 F.Supp.3d 717, 719 (E.D. Mo. 2021) (citing Nettles v. Am. Tel. and Tel. Co., 55 F.3d 1358, 1362 (8th Cir. 1995)). In this forum state-Missouri-“statutes of limitations are procedural and accordingly governed by Missouri law.” Id. (citing Nettles, 55 F.3d at 1362); Harris v. Mortg. Pros., Inc., 781 F.3d 946, 948 (8th Cir. 2015) ().
Missouri procedural law bars claims that would be time-barred in the jurisdiction where they originated, even if they would be timely under Missouri's own statute of limitations. Specifically, Missouri's borrowing statute provides that “[w]henever a cause of action has been fully barred by the laws of the state, territory or country in which it originated, said bar shall be a complete defense to any action thereon, brought in any of the courts of this state.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.190. Under Missouri law, therefore, while personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial