Benteler Automotive v. Allied Plstc ( 2023 )

Case: 22-40654 Document: 00516760285 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
May 23, 2023
No. 22-40654 Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
Mario A. Velazquez,
Plaintiff,
Benteler Automotive Corporation; Benteler
Automotive-Mexico,
Third Party Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
Ruben De La Rose Martinez, Juan Alfonso Alvarado
Amador
Defendants,
Allied Plastics, Incorporated; Forming Technologies,
L.L.C.; Packaging Concepts & Design, L.L.C.,
Third Party Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:16-CV-238
______________________________
Before Elrod, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-40654 Document: 00516760285 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2023
No. 22-40654
Per Curiam: *
This case arises from an injury caused by a falling shipping container.
Third-party plaintiffs/appellants Benteler Mexico and Benteler Automotive,
who were contracting to transport the shipping container at the time of the
injury, sought indemnification under the Texas Products Liability Act from
Allied Plastics and the other third-party defendants/appellees, who
manufactured the shipping container. The district court held that the
Benteler appellants were not “sellers” of the shipping container, as required
for Texas Products Liability Act indemnification. Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. § 82.002(a); Centerpoint Builders, LLC v. Trussway, Ltd., 496 S.W.3d
33, 35-36 (Tex. 2016). Accordingly, the district court granted summary
judgment to Allied Plastics and the other third-party defendants. We
AFFIRM.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.
Green v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 754 F.3d 324, 329 (5th Cir. 2014). Summary
judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine dispute of any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a). “The sole question is whether a ‘reasonable jury drawing all
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party could arrive at a verdict in that
party’s favor.’” Guzman v. Allstate Assurance Co., 18 F.4th 157, 160 (5th Cir.
2021) (quoting Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263 (5th
Cir. 1991)).
The district court correctly granted Allied Plastics’ and the other
third-party defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The district court
held that the Benteler appellants are not sellers under the Texas Products
Liability Act because they are not “in the business” of distributing or placing
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
2
Case: 22-40654 Document: 00516760285 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/23/2023
No. 22-40654
the shipping containers into the stream of commerce. Centerpoint Builders,
496 S.W.3d at 41-42; Armstrong Rubber Co. v. Urquidez, 570 S.W.2d 374, 376
(Tex. 1978). It followed that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to
whether the Benteler appellants are entitled to indemnification from Allied
Plastics. We agree for substantially the same reasons as detailed by the
district court and AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
3