Opinion ID: 441783
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Factual Showing

Text: 8 The factual context, based upon the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), construed as required most favorably to the opponent (Dorden) to the summary-judgment motion, show: 9 The plaintiff was hired as a hydroblaster and truck driver by Hydro-Tech Corporation (Hydro-Tech), a Texas corporation, and his duties required him to drive the heavily loaded truck that crashed while he was at work. Hydro-Tech was engaged in the business of furnishing industrial cleaning for refineries and chemical companies in Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama. The allegedly defective truck which crashed had been designed, specially manufactured, and assembled in New York by Heist, a New York corporation with executive offices in Florida, for use as a pump truck in the high-pressure industrial cleaning business, in which both Heist and Hydro-Tech were involved. Hydro-Tech had leased the truck from and had paid rentals to Heist. Hydro-Tech's Louisiana manager had authority to hire and fire Hydro-Tech employees, including the plaintiff Dorden. Hydro-Tech (but not Heist) paid state income and franchise taxes in Louisiana. So far as the record shows, Hydro-Tech secured and billed its own customers, maintained its own employment records, had assets in its own name, without day-to-day supervision or intervention by Heist. 10 In contending that summary judgment holding that Heist was Hydro-Tech's statutory principal was nonetheless proper, Heist relies solely upon its statement of allegedly uncontested facts attached to its motion for summary judgment. These pertinently show: 11 Hydro-Tech was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Heist. Heist provided or supervised all accounting and administrative services for Hydro-Tech and maintained all bank accounts therefor. [P]olicy for the management of Hydro-Tech was provided by Heist, and the management personnel of Hydro-Tech were held accountable by Heist for the successes and failures of their corporation. Although Heist had other facets of its business that Hydro-Tech did not share, Heist and Hydro-Tech are generally in the same business, the furnishing of high-pressure cleaning. Hydro-Tech's equipment, premises, and payroll checks show it as a division of Heist. Heist's annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission show Hydro-Tech as a wholly owned subsidiary and an operating division of Heist. 4 12 This showing, it should be noted, is negative of any indication that Heist undertook through Hydro-Tech to perform work that was part of Heist's trade, business, or occupation, as defined by the Louisiana supreme court in Lewis, supra. Likewise, with regard to a dispute of material fact, the showing is silent with regard to the affidavits and depositions earlier filed on behalf of Heist, offered by it in support of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction of the action filed in Louisiana federal district court; these emphasized the independent and separate nature of Hydro-Tech from Heist, and Heist's lack of supervision or control of Hydro-Tech, such as would dispute any factual contention that Hydro-Tech was an alter ego of Heist. Cf., Baker v. Raymond International, Inc., 656 F.2d 173, 179-81 (5th Cir.1981).