LANCE AFRICK, Magistrate Judge
Third-party defendant, Kimray, Inc. ("Kimray"), has filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the thrid-party complaint filed by Energy Resource Technology ("ERT"). Kimray contends that the undisputed facts demonstrate that Kimray did not manufacture, design, construct, install, produce or sell the two piece ball valve which allegedly failed and caused injury to plaintiff, Roger Curol. Therefore, Kimray asserts that there is no genuine issue for trial with respect to ERT's third-party causes of action against it for negligence, product liability and breach of implied warranties.
Rec. Doc. No. 26.
Kimray's motion was set for hearing on December 1, 2004. L.R. 7.5E of the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion be filed and a copy be delivered to chambers eight days prior to the date set for hearing of the motion. No memorandum in opposition to Kimray's motion for summary judgment was received prior to the hearing date. Accordingly, this motion is deemed to be unopposed.
Having reviewed the record, the motion of the plaintiff, the memorandum in support, the attachments to the motion, and the law, the Court finds that the Kimray's motion has merit and there are no material facts in dispute. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Auguster v. Vermilion Parish School Board, 249 F.3d 400, 402 (5th Cir. 2001).
The undisputed facts establish that plaintiff was injured while in the process of removing a glycol pump on an offshore platform. It is undisputed that Kimray manufactured the glycol pump which plaintiff was removing. However, it is also undisputed that the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury was the failure of a two piece 1" SS AOP ball valve which was located between a second Kimray glycol pump and the wet glycol return line from the contact tower. It is undisputed that Kimray did not manufacture, design, produce, sell or install the ball valve, the failure of which caused plaintiff's injury. ERT has not come forward with any evidence by way of affidavits, discovery responses, documents, or depositions that demonstrate that there is a genuine issue for trial with respect to whether any of Kimray's conduct was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. Therefore, ERT cannot establish that Kimray is liable to ERT should ERT be held liable to plaintiff.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of third-party defendant, Kimray, Inc., is GRANTED and the third-party claims against Kimray, Inc. are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and with costs.