Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (W.D. Wash., July 31, 2017, dismissal, as to Honeywell International)

Our plain-English summary of Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, July 31, 2017).

Matthew Hodjera and his wife Sylvia sued many companies in Washington state court, later removed to federal court, claiming his mesothelioma, diagnosed in May 2016, was caused by asbestos-containing products. The complaint said he was exposed in Toronto, Ontario, between 1986 and 1994. Honeywell International, a Delaware corporation based in New Jersey, asked for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. The court agreed that Washington had no general jurisdiction over Honeywell because it was neither incorporated nor headquartered there. On specific jurisdiction, the plaintiffs argued that Honeywell's predecessor Bendix made asbestos brake friction materials and that Honeywell did business in Washington. The court found the claim did not arise out of Honeywell's Washington contacts, because the exposure happened in Toronto and Honeywell's Washington sales of similar products did not cause it. It denied leave to amend, since an earlier proposed amended complaint had not fixed the problem, and dismissed the claims against Honeywell with prejudice.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington
• Decided: July 31, 2017
• Docket: Case No. C17-48RSL
• Stage: Motion to dismiss
• State: Washington

Outcome. The court granted Honeywell International's motion for judgment on the pleadings for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the Hodjeras' claims against Honeywell with prejudice and denying leave to amend.

What the court held. Specific personal jurisdiction requires that the claim arise out of the defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum; a plaintiff exposed to similar products only in another jurisdiction (Toronto) does not meet that requirement in Washington.

Issues decided: Personal Jurisdiction, Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• Matthew Hodjera: mesothelioma

Who	Work	Where	When	Products
Matthew Hodjera		Toronto	1986-1994	brakes, clutches and friction materials, Bendix friction materials (Honeywell's predecessor)

The defendants

• Honeywell International Inc. (manufacturer)

Other decisions in this case

Other rulings from the same court in the same case, in our library:

• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (May 17, 2017). The court granted Volkswagen AG's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the Hodjeras' claims against it without prejudice and allowing them to move to amend by June 2, 2017.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (May 17, 2017). The court granted Volkswagen Group Canada, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against it without prejudice, with leave to seek amendment by June 2, 2017.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (May 17, 2017). The court granted Volkswagen Group of America's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the Hodjeras' claims against it without prejudice and allowing them to move to amend by June 2, 2017.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (May 17, 2017). The court granted Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the Hodjeras' claims against it without prejudice and allowing them to move to amend by June 2, 2017.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (May 23, 2017). The court granted Dana Companies, LLC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the Hodjeras' claims against it without prejudice and allowing them until June 2, 2017 to move to amend.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (July 31, 2017). The court granted Imerys Talc America Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the Hodjeras' claims against it with prejudice and denying leave to amend and Imerys's request for attorney's fees.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (July 31, 2017). The court denied as moot the plaintiffs' motion for a priority trial setting, because the existing March 5, 2018 trial date already matched the seven-month timeline they requested.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (July 31, 2017). The court denied the Hodjeras' motion to amend their complaint as futile and dismissed with prejudice the claims against Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, the Volkswagen entities, the Dana entities, Imerys Talc America and Honeywell for lack of specific jurisdiction in Washington.

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

MATTHEW HODJERA and SYLVIA HODJERA, Plaintiffs,

v.

BASF CATALYSTS LLC, etal., INC.'S Defendants.

Case No. C17-48RSL.

July 31, 2017.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle.

Matthew Hodjera, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra B. Caggiano, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC.

Matthew Hodjera, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Robert Couture, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Charles Stein Siegel, WATERS & KRAUS LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick J. Wigle, WATERS & KRAUS LLP, pro hac vice.

Sylvia Hodjera, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra B. Caggiano, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Benjamin Robert Couture, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Charles Stein Siegel, WATERS & KRAUS

LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick J. Wigle, WATERS & KRAUS LLP, pro hac vice.

BASF Catalysts, LLC, Defendant, represented by Anthony Todaro, DLA PIPER US LLP.

BorgWarner Morse Tec, Inc, Defendant, represented by Richard D. Ross, SELMAN BRIETMAN LLP & Michael J. Madderra, SELMAN BRIETMAN LLP.

DAP Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Peter K. Renstrom, JACKSON JENKINS RENSTROM LLC, pro hac vice, Robert J. Bugatto, JACKSON JENKINS RENSTROM LLC, pro hac vice, Joan L. Roth, JACKSON JENKINS RENSTROM

LLP & Todd M. Thacker, JACKSON JENKINS RENSTROM LLP.

Johnson & Johnson, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Walther, SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Gannon Crisera, BENNETT BIGELOW & LEEDOM & William James Leedom, BENNETT BIGELOW & LEEDOM.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin Walther, SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Gannon Crisera, BENNETT BIGELOW & LEEDOM & William James Leedom, BENNETT

BIGELOW & LEEDOM.

Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, represented by Diane J. Kero, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig, GORDON & REES & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON & REES.

Vanderbilt Minerals LLC, Defendant, represented by Alice Coles Serko, SEDGWICK LLP, Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP & Rachel Tallon Reynolds, SEDGWICK LLP.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL MOTION

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL

JURISDICTION

ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on defendant Honeywell International Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dkt. # 152. Plaintiffs Matthew and Sylvia Hodjera, a married couple, allege that Mr. Hodjera's mesothelioma was proximately caused by various corporate defendants' manufacture, sale, and/or distribution of asbestoscontaining products. Defendant Honeywell International Inc. ("Honeywell") moves for judgment on the pleadings

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), arguing that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the parties, the Court grants the motion for the reasons that follow.[1] I. BACKGROUND

According to the complaint, Mr. Hodjera was exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Toronto, Ontario, between 1986 and 1994. Dkt. # 1-1 at 4. On May 20, 2016, Mr. Hodjera was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Id. On December 2, 2016, plaintiffs filed suit in King County Superior Court, alleging that Mr. Hodjera's mesothelioma had been proximately caused by the manufacture, sale, and/or distribution of asbestos-containing products by the following defendants: BASF Catalysts LLC; BorgWarner Morse Tec Inc.; Central Precision Limited; Charles B. Chrystal Company, Inc.; Dana Companies, LLC; Dana Canada Corp.; DAP Products, Inc.; Felt Products Mfg. Co.; Honeywell International Inc.; Imerys Talc America, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.; Pneumo Abex LLC; Union Carbide Corporation; Vanderbilt Minerals LLC; Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft; Volkswagen Group of Canada; Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.; Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc.; and Does 1-350, inclusive. Dkt. # 1-1 at 2-3. On January 11, 2017, defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. removed the case. Dkt. # 1. Various defendants have moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

II. DISCUSSION

Like a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a motion for judgment on the pleadings tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint; the same standard applies to both types of motions. See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2011).

Here, Honeywell argues that plaintiffs' complaint fails to allege facts supporting personal jurisdiction over it. Honeywell is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. Dkt. # 152 at 2 n.1. The complaint's only allegations specific to Honeywell are that it "knew or should have known of the specific medical and scientific data, literature and test results relating to the manufacture, as well as to the grinding and drilling, of automobile asbestos containing brake linings and/or clutch friction materials," Dkt. # 1-1 at 11-12. The complaint does not allege that Honeywell's products were present in Toronto between 1986 and 1994. See generally Dkt. # 1-1.

Due process requires a district court to have personal jurisdiction over a defendant in order to adjudicate a claim against it. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 753 (2014). Plaintiffs have the burden of demonstrating that the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Honeywell. Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Services, Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1128-29 (9th Cir. 2003). Absent an evidentiary hearing, plaintiffs need only make, through the submission of pleadings and affidavits, a prima facie showing of facts supporting personal jurisdiction to avoid dismissal. Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 2001). Provided the long-arm statute of the state in which the Court sits permits the Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction,[2] there are two ways to establish that the Court has personal jurisdiction over a particular defendant. Id. at 753-55. This order considers each in turn.

A. General Jurisdiction

A defendant is subject to a court's general personal jurisdiction when its contacts are "so constant and pervasive as to render it essentially at home" in the forum. Daimler AG, 134 S. Ct. at 751 (internal quotation and brackets omitted). General jurisdiction over a party ensures personal jurisdiction over that party for any claim, regardless of that claim's relationship to the forum. Id. at 761. Because Honeywell is not incorporated in Washington and does not have its principal place of business in Washington, the Court agrees that it lacks general personal jurisdiction over Honeywell. See Daimler AG, 134 S. Ct. at 760-61 (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)).

B. Specific Jurisdiction

A defendant may also be sued in a forum where it has minimal contacts, provided those contacts are purposefully directed at the forum, the claim arises out of those contacts, and the exercise of jurisdiction over that party is reasonable. See

Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2006).

Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Hodjera's illness was caused by his exposure to "asbestos and asbestos-containing products that were mined, manufactured, produced, and/or placed into the stream of commerce by the defendants in this case." Dkt. # 165 at 3. To establish personal jurisdiction over Honeywell, plaintiffs allege that Bendix Corporation, Honeywell's predecessorin-interest, purposefully availed itself of this Washington forum by manufacturing friction materials for use in brakes, that these materials contained asbestos, and that Mr. Hodjera worked with these friction materials. Dkt. # 173 at 8-9. Plaintiffs further allege that Honeywell is licensed to do business in Washington state, and that it has offices throughout the state. Dkt. # 173 at 8. Plaintiffs attach depositions, advertisements, and a print-out from the Washington Secretary of State's website supporting these allegations. Dkt. # 174-1.

Still, plaintiffs fail to satisfy the second prong of the specific jurisdiction test: the requirement that their claim arise out of the defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum state. According to the complaint, Mr. Hodjera's asbestos exposure occurred in Toronto, Ontario. Dkt. # 1-1 at 4. There is no allegation that Mr. Hodjera's exposure would not have occurred "but for" Honeywell's contacts with Washington. See Menken v. Emm, 503 F.3d 1050, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007). Instead, plaintiffs allege simply that "the products defendant has sold in Washington include the same kind of products with which plaintiff worked, causing his exposure to asbestos." Dkt. # 173 at 10. Mr. Hodjera's history of working with "similar" products in Toronto fails to establish specific jurisdiction over Honeywell in Washington.

Accordingly, Honeywell is entitled to judgment on the pleadings for lack of personal jurisdiction.

C. Leave to Amend

Plaintiffs alternatively request leave to amend. Dkt. # 173 at 13. "[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts." Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). On June 2, 2017, plaintiffs moved for leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt. # 164. The Court denied that motion on July 31, 2017, finding that plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint failed to cure the jurisdictional deficiencies in the original complaint. Because it appears that plaintiffs' pleading as to Honeywell could not be cured by the allegation of other facts, the Court declines plaintiffs' request for another opportunity to amend their complaint.

For all the foregoing reasons, Honeywell's motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. # 152, is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' claims against Honeywell are dismissed with prejudice.

[1] The Court concludes that this matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument. Accordingly, Honeywell's request for argument, Dkt. # 152, and plaintiffs' request for argument, Dkt. # 173, are denied.

[2] Washington's long-arm statute, RCW 4.28.125, permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the extent that due process allows. Shute v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 113 Wn.2d 763, 771 (1989).

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• Washington asbestos laws
• Washington asbestos exposure sites