Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Maysey v. Henkel Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division

December 16, 2019

NATHANIEL EDWARD MAYSEY PLAINTIFF
v.
HENKEL CORPORATION; HENKEL AG & CO. KGAA; and NEMAK USA, INC. DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Greg N. Stivers, Chief Judge United States District Court

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (DN 134). The motion is ripe for adjudication. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Defendant Nemak USA Inc. (“Nemak”) die casts aluminum automobile parts. (Byrd Dep. 14:5, Oct. 30, 2018, DN 134-3; Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Resp. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. 1, DN 136-1 [hereinafter Pl.'s Resp.]). Magna-Tech Manufacturing, LLC (“Magna-Tech”)[1] impregnates die-casted aluminum automobile parts. (Byrd Dep. 14:5-6; Pl.'s Resp. 1). On or about August 5, 2014, Magna-Tech and Nemak entered into a Services Agreement whereby Magna-Tech would “perform Impregnation Services” for Nemak from June 12, 2014, to December 31, 2019. (Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 2, ¶¶ 1.1-1.2, DN 134-2 [hereinafter Services Agreement]). The Services Agreement allowed Magna-Tech to perform its services for Nemak by operating within Nemak's facility in Glasgow, Kentucky. (Services Agreement ¶ 2.1).

         Plaintiff Nathaniel Edward Maysey (“Maysey”), was employed by Express Services, Inc. (“Express Services”), a temporary staffing company. (Pl.'s Resp. 3). He was assigned to work for Magna-Tech on June 1, 2016. (Pl.'s Resp. 3). Maysey was injured when his arm was caught in a rotating centrifuge. (Pl.'s Resp. 5).

         Maysey brought suit against Defendants in Kentucky state court, claiming negligence and strict liability, and Defendants subsequently removed this case to federal court. (Notice Removal ¶¶ 1-2, DN 1). Nemak now moves for summary judgment, disclaiming any liability for Maysey's injuries. (Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., DN 134).

         II. JURISDICTION

         This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction of this matter based upon diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact that would preclude entry of judgment for the moving party as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of stating the basis for the motion and identifying the evidence demonstrating an absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). If the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party must then produce specific evidence proving the existence of a genuine dispute of fact for trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).

         While the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable for the nonmoving party, the nonmoving party must do more than merely show the existence of some “metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (citation omitted). Rather, the nonmoving party must present facts proving that a genuine factual dispute exists by “citing to particular parts of the materials in the record” or by “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence . . . of a genuine dispute . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [nonmoving party's] position will be insufficient” to overcome summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.

         IV. DISCUSSION

         Nemak asserts that Kentucky premises liability and workers' compensation law absolve it from any liability in this case. Kentucky state law forms the substantive law used to evaluate Maysey's claim. Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393, 417 (2010) (“[F]ederal courts sitting in diversity ‘apply state substantive law and federal procedural law.'” (quoting Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 465 (1965))).

         Nemak owns the property on which Maysey suffered his injuries. (Services Agreement 1). Nemak and Magna-Tech entered into an agreement whereby Magna-Tech was allowed to install equipment at Nemak's Glasgow facility and perform impregnation services for ladder frames which Magna-Tech then sold to Nemak. (Services Agreement ¶ 1.2). Express ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.