Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, CAUSATION—FOOD AND BEVERAGES—D. Nev.: Panda Express denied summary judgment in consumer’s food poisoning case, (Aug 25, 2025)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

An injured individual’s circumstantial evidence and expert medical testimony created a genuine dispute as to causation, which was fit for a jury to resolve.

In an action brought against a renowned restaurant corporation by a man who allegedly experienced acute food poisoning from eating contaminated poultry, a federal district court in Nevada denied the restaurant’s motion for summary judgment. The court found that the restaurant's motion failed to address the legal elements of the claims brought against it, that the consumer’s expert properly relied on the timing of the man’s illness and the poultry’s digestion rate to find with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the poultry caused his illness, that the man’s deposition testimony eliminated other potential sources of contamination, and that factual inconsistencies raised material disputes warranting a jury determination (Edwards v. Panda Express, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-001029-EJY (D. Nev. Aug. 20, 2025)).

Background. A man consumed poultry at a Panda Express restaurant at Green Valley Station Casino in Nevada. He claimed to have experienced symptoms consistent with foodborne illness shortly after eating the meal, and brought suit against Panda Express, Inc. His medical expert opined that it was “[m]ore likely than not, and to a reasonable degree of medical probability, [that the consumer] experienced acute food poisoning from eating contaminated poultry.” The restaurant moved for summary judgment, principally arguing lack of evidence supporting causation. The motion did not address the legal elements of the negligence, strict products liability, or breach of express or implied warranty claims raised in the complaint, except as to causation.

Applicable standard. To defeat summary judgment and establish a question of fact regarding causation, the consumer did not need to prove a material issue of fact conclusively in his favor. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir. 1987). Rather, summary judgment is defeated when “the claimed factual dispute … [is] shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial.” Moreover, Nevada law does not require a consumer to produce scientific evidence demonstrating proximate cause to establish the cause of his food poisoning. Wilson v. Circus Circus Hotels, 710 P.2d 77, 79 (Nev. 1985). Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish causation if a plaintiff is able to negate alternative theories of the source of his illness, and may serve as a “sufficient [basis] to send the case to the jury.”

Parties’ evidence. Panda Express claimed that the man’s testimony, coupled with his expert’s opinion, was insufficient to establish a question of fact regarding causation, while the man countered that circumstantial evidence created issues of fact sufficient to withstand summary judgment. In reaching opinions, the medical expert relied on the timing of the illness; the apparent evidence of undigested chicken suggesting “upper gastrointestinal tract motility” that was “dramatically slowed following ingestion of the Panda Express meal”; and the fact that the man had eaten no other food after consuming the poultry at issue. The expert explained that “[u]nder usual circumstances, all food would have cleared the stomach within” eight hours following ingestion, and he described the pathogen that likely caused the man’s physical symptoms. The restaurant claimed that the man had breakfast around 6 a.m. on December 21, 2021, and dinner at Panda Express at 5 p.m. on December 22, 2021—approximately 1.5 days later—but later changed this date to the 21st. This change supported the man’s argument that it was the Panda Express food which made him ill since he had breakfast at least 11 hours earlier in the day. The man also provided a rough timeline of his arrival in Las Vegas, renting a vehicle, and staying at Green Valley Ranch. He described using an antiseptic wipe to clean his rental vehicle before driving and denied consuming any alcohol, thus eliminating alternative theories regarding the source of his illness.

Analysis. The court noted the restaurant's confusion about the exact timeline of the injured individual’s movements and meals, which introduced contradictions in the factual disputes rather than resolving them. Taking into consideration the man’s deposition testimony, his expert’s testimony, and the inconsistencies in the restaurant’s motion, the court held that Panda Express failed to carry its burden of eliminating a question of material fact regarding the cause of the illness. When there is a lack of clarity regarding evidence on which the moving party relies, and the non-moving party offers sufficient evidence to support (albeit not necessarily to prove) the element of the claim the defendant contends cannot be proven, summary judgment is not properly granted. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 323 (1986). As such, the matter was due to be presented before a jury before evaluation of the causation evidence.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-001029-EJY.

Judge: Youchah, E.

Attorneys: Christopher Dale Burk (Patriot Law Firm, LLC) for David Edwards. Kimberly Ann Nelson (Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP) for Panda Express, Inc.

Companies: Panda Express, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory CausationNews FoodBeveragesNews ExpertEvidenceNews NevadaNews