Pinnavaia ex rel. Pinnavaia v. Celotex Asbestos Settlement Trust

Citation: 271 F. Supp. 3d 705Docket: Civ. No. 16-742-LPS

Court: District Court, D. Delaware; September 22, 2017; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiff Matthew D. Pinnavaia, representing his deceased father, filed a pro se lawsuit against Defendant Celotex Asbestos Settlement Trust, claiming violations of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The suit, initiated on August 22, 2016, follows the Trust's denial of a claim based on the father's alleged asbestos exposure, which was deemed time-barred according to the Trust's claims resolution procedures. Plaintiff argues that the statute of limitations imposed by the Trust is illegal and unconstitutional. The Trust, created under the Bankruptcy Code to compensate asbestos injury victims, moved to dismiss the case, asserting it is not a governmental actor, that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and that the claim is time-barred. Plaintiff countered that his father's due process rights were violated but did not address the other dismissal grounds raised by the Trust. The court has decided to grant the Trust's motion to dismiss.

Evaluating a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires the court to accept all material allegations in the complaint as true. The focus is not on whether the plaintiff will prevail but on whether they can present evidence to support their claims. A motion to dismiss may only be granted if, after accepting the allegations as true and viewing them favorably for the plaintiff, it is determined that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

A well-pleaded complaint must provide more than mere labels or conclusions; it must contain sufficient factual matter to demonstrate substantive plausibility of the claims. Complaints cannot be dismissed for imperfect legal theory statements, but they must allege facts that raise the right to relief above a speculative level. A claim is deemed facially plausible when it includes factual content that allows for a reasonable inference of liability against the defendant. 

The complaint must state enough facts to reasonably expect that discovery will reveal evidence of each claim's necessary elements. The court is not required to accept bald assertions, unsupported conclusions, unwarranted inferences, or self-evidently false allegations as true. If the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, their complaint is interpreted liberally and held to less stringent standards than those drafted by attorneys.

The Court determines that it can consider the Defendant’s exhibits attached to its motion to dismiss without changing the motion to one for summary judgment. Such consideration is permissible for authentic documents that are integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint. The complaint references these documents, mitigating concerns about the plaintiff's notice. 

The Court notes that federal and state due process rights typically protect against government actions, and there are no allegations that the Defendant is a state actor. The Defendant, created under a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan approved by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, is identified as a private entity formed by Celotex Corporation and Carey Canada Inc. The Court cites precedent establishing that a bankruptcy trustee represents the debtor's estate, not the government. 

Since the Defendant is a private asbestos settlement trust and not considered an arm of the government, the Plaintiff lacks a valid claim for violation of the Due Process Clause. Consequently, the Court finds that dismissal is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and amendment of the complaint would be futile. The Court will grant the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

Defendant's motion to dismiss the case is granted, determining that any amendment would be futile. The court directs the Clerk to close the case, citing that the claim is time-barred under both New York and California law. Plaintiff's father was diagnosed with asbestos-related injuries in 1986 and passed away in 1997, while the Plaintiff filed the claim on October 14, 2014. According to New York law, a plaintiff has three years from the date of discovering the injury to file a lawsuit, and the decedent’s estate has two years from the date of death to file a wrongful death claim. The court references relevant statutes, including New York's CPLR § 214 and EPTL § 5-4.1, as well as California's Code § 340.2, emphasizing that for the action to succeed, it must be shown that the decedent could have maintained the claim had he survived.