Case Name: Nanette GROSS, Individually and as representative of Terry Gross, deceased; Diane Horton, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Bobby Horton, deceased; Kevin Horton, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. NCH CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-22
Citations: 691 F. App'x 203
Docket Number: No. 16-60646
Parties: Nanette GROSS, Individually and as representative of Terry Gross, deceased; Diane Horton, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Bobby Horton, deceased; Kevin Horton, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. NCH CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Judges: Before DAVIS, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 203–204

Head Matter:
Nanette GROSS, Individually and as representative of Terry Gross, deceased; Diane Horton, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Bobby Horton, deceased; Kevin Horton, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. NCH CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
No. 16-60646
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed June 22, 2017
Dana Jan Swan, Esq., Chapman, Lewis & Swan, Clarksdale, MS, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Amy Lewis Champagne, Esq., Samuel D. Gregory, Baker; Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellee
Before DAVIS, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This tragic case arises from an early-2010 outbreak of Legionnaire's disease at the Hotel Chester in Starkville, Mississippi. Four of the five plaintiffs contracted the disease from the hotel's cooling system, and the plaintiffs allege that the fifth plaintiff did as well. Two of the plaintiffs died, and another became severely sick.
The plaintiffs sued multiple parties for negligence. All but NCH Corporation, which had provided water treatment for the hotel since 2004, were later dismissed. NCH then moved for both summary judgment and to strike the plaintiffs' experts. In a well-reasoned order, the district court granted NCH's motions and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. For essentially the same reasons given by the district court, we AFFIRM.
Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.