Lopez v. McDERMOTT, Inc. (E.D. La., June 21, 2019)

Our plain-English summary of Lopez v. McDERMOTT, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, June 21, 2019).

Federico Lopez, a pipefitter and welder, alleged he developed malignant mesothelioma from asbestos exposure at facilities owned or run by several defendants. He died in November 2017, and his wife Maricela and son Federico Lopez III continued the suit and added a wrongful death claim. The complaint said he handled gaskets for Lamons Gasket from 1971 to 1973 and worked for Kellogg Brown & Root from 1973 to 1986, including at sites tied to ConocoPhillips. ConocoPhillips moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, among other requests. The question was whether Louisiana could exercise specific jurisdiction over it. Mr. Lopez first testified he worked offshore on Conoco platforms, then said the work was in the yard, which the court inferred meant Houston, Texas. Plaintiffs relied on unnamed co-workers and unsupported statements made on information and belief. The court held this did not make a prima facie case, but found enough to allow limited jurisdictional discovery. It deferred ruling and set a July 22, 2019 deadline, after which it would grant dismissal absent evidence.

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, Eastern District of Louisiana
• Decided: June 21, 2019
• Docket: Civil Action No. 17-8977, Cons. W. No. 19-9928
• Stage: Jurisdiction, venue or removal
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The court found plaintiffs had not made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over ConocoPhillips, deferred ruling on its motion to dismiss, and ordered limited jurisdictional discovery with a July 22, 2019 deadline, failing which the motion would be granted.

What the court held. A court need not accept as true conclusory jurisdictional assertions made on information and belief, but where plaintiffs make a preliminary showing that suggests the possible existence of forum contacts, the court may allow jurisdictional discovery before ruling.

Issues decided: Personal Jurisdiction, Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• Federico Lopez: mesothelioma; died

Who	Work	Where	When	Products
Federico Lopez	gasket cutter	Lamons Gasket Company	1971-1973	gaskets and packing
Federico Lopez	welder/pipefitter		1973-1986
Federico Lopez	welder/pipefitter	Conoco site/platform (location disputed)	1973-1986

The defendants

• ConocoPhillips Company (premises owner)
• Lamons Gasket Company (employer)
• Kellogg Brown & Root (employer)
• Shell Oil Company (premises owner)
• Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (premises owner)

Other decisions in this case

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

• Lopez v. McDERMOTT, Inc. (January 24, 2018). The district court denied Federico Lopez's motion to remand, ruling that federal jurisdiction existed under OCSLA, so Shell Oil and Tennessee Gas Pipeline prevailed on removal.
• Lopez v. McDERMOTT, Inc. (August 29, 2018). The court granted McDermott, Inc.'s unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Lopez plaintiffs' claims against McDermott with prejudice.
• Lopez v. McDERMOTT, Inc. (November 25, 2019). The court denied the motions to dismiss by Exxon Mobil, Marathon, Chevron, Texaco, Emerson Electric and General Electric, and granted Goulds and ITT's motion only as to the Soliz survival claim (barred by the earlier dismissal) while denying it as to the Soliz wrongful death claims.
• Lopez v. McDERMOTT, Inc (July 6, 2020). The court granted Exxon Mobil's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Lopez plaintiffs' negligence and strict liability claims against Exxon as a premises owner, because Exxon owed no duty and had no care, custody or control of the asbestos.
• Lopez v. McDERMOTT, Inc (July 6, 2020). The court denied Crosby Valves' motion for summary judgment, finding Mr. Lopez's deposition admissible against Crosby and enough evidence of exposure and substantial-factor causation for the plaintiffs' claims to proceed.
• Lopez v. McDERMOTT, Inc. (July 13, 2020). The court denied Fisher Controls International's motion for summary judgment, so the Lopez plaintiffs' claims against Fisher go forward.

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.

FEDERICO LOPEZ, ET AL.

v.

McDERMOTT, INC., ET AL., SECTION "L" (5).

APPLIES TO 17-8977 ONLY.

Civil Action No. 17-8977, Cons. W. No. 19-9928.

June 21, 2019.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

Federico Lopez, Maricela Lopez & Federico Lopez, III, Plaintiffs, represented by Lindsey A. Cheek, Christopher Joseph Fransen, The Cheek Law Firm, Rubiante Lolana Brown, Cheek Law Firm, LLC & Ryan M. Sweet, Flint Law Firm, LLC, pro hac vice.

Jessica Soliz & Alfred Soliz, Consol Plaintiffs, represented by Brian Francis Blackwell, Blackwell & Associates. Shell Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Gregory M. Anding, Kean Miller, Alexandra E. Rossi, Kean Miller, Allison N. Benoit, Kean Miller, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP, Bradley Joseph Schlotterer, Kean Miller LLP, Gayla M. Moncla, Kean Miller, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller, Robert E. Dille, Kean Miller, LLP, Sarah W. Anderson, Sarah W. Anderson, Attorney at Law & Sean T. McLaughlin, Kean Miller LLP.

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, formerly known as Tenneco Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory M. Anding, Kean Miller, Alexandra E. Rossi, Kean Miller, Allison N. Benoit, Kean Miller, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP, Bradley Joseph Schlotterer, Kean Miller LLP, Gayla M. Moncla, Kean Miller, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller, Robert E. Dille, Kean Miller, LLP & Sarah W. Anderson, Sarah W. Anderson, Attorney at Law.

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, formerly known as, Defendant, represented by Sean T. McLaughlin, Kean Miller LLP.

Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline LLC, formerly known as Chevron Petrochemical Pipeline LLC, Texaco Petrochemical Pipeline LLC, Defendant, represented by Terrence Kent Knister, Gordon, Arata, Montgomery & Barnett, Ewell E. Eagan, Jr., Gordon, Arata, Montgomery & Barnett & James D. Rhorer, Gordon, Arata, Montgomery & Barnett.

ExxonMobil Corporation, Incorrectly named Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Erin Conner Percy, Liskow & Lewis, James McClendon Williams, Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLC, John Allain Viator, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Lexi T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC & Melissa Jade Shaffer, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C.

Marathon Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Alexander G. Calfo, King & Spalding, LLP, pro hac vice, Etienne Francis Rene, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Keith W. McDaniel, McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy, Mcdaniel, Melissa Desormeaux Fuller, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Michael H. Abraham, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Peter Sinnott Martin, McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy, Mcdaniel & Troy D. McMahan, King & Spalding, LLP, pro hac vice.

Crosby Valves, LLC, A Wholly owned subsidiary of Emerson Electric Co., Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Barry C. Campbell, Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC, James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Lacey Taylor McCoy, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C.

Fisher Controls International LLC, A wholly owned subsidiary of Emerson Electric Co., Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot

L.L.C., Lacey Taylor McCoy, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C.

Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Defendant, represented by Tim D. Gray, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Amy Louise Maccherone, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Melissa Desormeaux Fuller, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Michael H. Abraham, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Michelle Miller Roy, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP.

Air & Liquid Systems, formerly known as Buffalo Pumps, Defendant, represented by Stacey Leigh Strain, Hubbard, Mitchell, Williams & Strain, PLLC.

Chevron Corporation & Texaco, Inc., Defendants, represented by Michael H. Abraham, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP. Conoco Phillips, as Successor in Interest to Conoco, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tyson B. Shofstahl, Adams & Reese, LLP & Taylor Edward Brett, Adams & Reese, LLP.

EPL Oil & Gas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP, Alexandra E. Rossi, Kean Miller, Allison N. Benoit, Kean Miller, Gayla M. Moncla, Kean Miller, Georgia Noble Ainsworth, Kean Miller LLP, Gregory M. Anding, Kean Miller, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller, Karen Waters Shipman, Kean Miller LLP, Karli Glascock Johnson, Kean Miller, LLP & Sean T. McLaughlin, Kean Miller LLP.

Guard-Line, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kevin M. Melchi, Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC, Robert W. Wilkinson, Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC, pro hac vice & Will R. Norman, Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC, pro hac vice.

McMaster-Carr Supply Company, Defendant, represented by Kay Barnes Baxter, Foley & Mansfield & Jonathan David Lewis, Foley & Mansfield.

Uniroyal Holding, Inc., as Successor to Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Amy Louise Maccherone, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP.

Viking Pump, Inc., doc 196, Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer, Sommers, Marullo & Matherne & James Matthew Matherne, Courington, Kiefer, Sommers, Marullo & Matherne.

BW/IP, Inc., rec doc 256; Erroneously sued as Flowserve Corporation, as success-in-interest to BW/IP International, Defendant, represented by Glenn Lyle Maximilian Swetman, MG+M The Law Firm, Bradley Adam Hays, MG+M The Law Firm, Brandie Mendoza Thibodeaux, MG + M The Law Firm, Christopher O. Massenburg, MG+M The Law Firm, David R. Frohn, MGM Law Firm, Helen Meredith Buckley, MG+M The Law Firm, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, MG+M The Law Firm, Meghan B. Senter, MG+M The Law Firm, Michael D. Goggans, MG+M The Law Firm & Natasha Amber Corb, MG+M The Law Firm.

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. & Texaco Inc, formerly known as ChevronTexaco Corporation, Consol Defendants, represented by Tim D. Gray, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, McCann Elizabeth LeFeve, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Melissa Desormeaux Fuller, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Michael H. Abraham, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Michelle Miller Roy, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP.

Emerson Electric Co & General Electric Company, Consol Defendants, represented by Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Lacey Taylor McCoy, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C.

ConocoPhillips Company, formerly known as Continental Oil Company, Consol Defendant, represented by Tyson B. Shofstahl, Adams & Reese, LLP.

Marathon Oil Company, Consol Defendant, represented by Keith W. McDaniel, McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy, Mcdaniel & Peter Sinnott Martin, McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy, Mcdaniel.

Shell Oil Company, Consol Defendant, represented by Gregory M. Anding, Kean Miller, Alexandra E. Rossi, Kean Miller, Allison N. Benoit, Kean Miller, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP, Gayla M. Moncla, Kean Miller, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller & Karli Glascock Johnson, Kean Miller, LLP.

Goulds Pumps LLC, formerly known as Goulds Pumps, Incorporated & ITT LLC, formerly known as ITT Water Technology, Inc., Bell & Gossett Company, Consol Defendants, represented by Lauren Ann McCulloch, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius &

Mitchell F. Tedesco, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, Consol Defendant, represented by David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Anthony Joseph Lascaro, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, James McClendon Williams, Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLC, John Allain Viator, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Lexi T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC & Melissa Jade Shaffer, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC.

El Paso Energy, E.S.T., as trustee for EPEC Oil Liquidating Trust, Consol Defendant, represented by Alexandra E. Rossi, Kean Miller, Allison N. Benoit, Kean Miller, Gayla M. Moncla, Kean Miller, Gregory M. Anding, Kean Miller, James McClendon Williams, Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLC, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller & Karli Glascock Johnson, Kean Miller, LLP.

John Crane Inc & Lamons Gasket Company, Third Party Plaintiffs, represented by Kenan Slade Rand, Jr., Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP, Elizabeth Attie Babin Carville, Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP, Lacey Sarver Goss, Lacey Sarver Goss, Attorney at Law, Lauren B. Dietzen, Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP & Scott H. Mason, Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP. Jessica Soliz & Alfred Soliz, Interested Partys, represented by Brian Francis Blackwell, Blackwell & Associates. ORDER & REASONS

ELDON E. FALLON, District Judge.

Before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant ConocoPhillips Company ("Conoco"). R. Doc. 223. Plaintiffs Maricela Lopez and Federico Lopez III oppose the motion.[1] R. Doc. 242. Conoco has filed a reply. R. Doc. 264. The Court now rules as follows.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of Plaintiff Federico Lopez' alleged exposure to asbestos while serving as a pipefitter and welder at facilities owned and/or operated by Defendants.[2] R. Doc. 1-2 at 2. Mr. Lopez contends he contracted malignant mesothelioma as a result of his exposure and seeks to recover damages for his injuries. Id. at 4. Mr. Lopez passed away on November 9, 2017. R. Doc. 61 at 1. His surviving spouse, Maricela Lopez, and surviving child, Federico Lopez III, now maintain the suit on Mr. Lopez' behalf and assert an additional claim for wrongful death. R. Doc. 61 at 1. In their second amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege Mr. Lopez was exposed to asbestos between 1971 and 1973 while working as a gasket cutter for Defendant Lamons Gasket Company and again between 1973 and 1986 while working for Kellogg Brown & Root ("KBR") as a welder/pipefitter. Id. at 2. On March 18, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Petition for Damages naming ConocoPhillips Company ("Conoco") as a Defendant for the first time. R. Doc. 196. In this amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege Mr. Lopez was "was exposed to asbestos during his work for KBR at premises/sites owned and/or operated by. . . CONOCOPHILLIPS, as successor in interest to CONOCO, INC., CHEVRON CORPORATION, EPL OIL and GAS INC., and TEXACO, INC." Id. at ¶ 8(a). They contend his job responsibilities at the Conoco site required him to "us[e] or handl[e] asbestos or asbestos-containing products and/or equipment requiring or calling for the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products." Id.

Based on this factual background, Plaintiffs bring strict liability and negligence claims against Defendants for their role in Mr. Lopez' exposure to asbestos and seek damages for medical expenses, lost earnings, pain and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of quality of life, and wrongful death. Id. at 16.

II. PRESENT MOTION

In the present motion, Defendant Conoco seeks three forms of relief: (1) dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, or in the alternative, (2) dismissal of Plaintiffs' fraud claims, and (3) a more definite statement. R. Doc. 223-1. The Court first addresses Conoco's contention that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction.

III. LAW & ANALYSIS

Conoco first challenges whether this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). R. Doc. 223. When nonresident defendants like Conoco seek dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing the court's jurisdiction. See Johnston v. Multidata Sys. Int'l Corp., 523 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2008). If the Court rules on the pleadings without first holding an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiffs are required only to make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction. Id. In determining whether the plaintiffs have met its burden, the Court may consider affidavits, interrogatories, depositions, or any other appropriate method of discovery. Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644, 648 (5th Cir. 1994). Under this analysis, the court "must accept as true [the plaintiffs'] uncontroverted allegations, and resolve in [their] favor all conflicts between the [jurisdictional] facts contained in the parties' affidavits and other documentation." Pervasive Software, Inc. v. Lexware GmbH & Co. KG, 688 F.3d 214, 219-20 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Freudensprung v. Offshore Tech. Servs., Inc., 379 F.3d 327, 343 (5th Cir. 2004) (alterations in original) (quotation omitted)). A federal district court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if "(1) the forum state's long-arm statute confers personal jurisdiction over that defendant; and (2) the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." McFadin v. Gerber, 587 F.3d 753, 759 (5th Cir. 2009). Because Louisiana's longarm statute extends as far as constitutional due process allows, the Court proceeds directly to the second step of the inquiry. See La. R.S. 13:3201 ("[A] court of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident on any basis consistent with the constitution of this state and of the Constitution of the United States."); see also Hunter v. Meyers, 96-1075, p. 3 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/27/97), 691 So. 2d 318, 320.

The exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant comports with the guarantees of federal due process when the nonresident defendant has established minimum contacts with the forum state and the exercise of jurisdiction "does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Office of Unemp't Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 (1940)). "There are two types of `minimum contacts': those that give rise to specific personal jurisdiction and those that give rise to general personal jurisdiction." Lewis v. Fresne, 252 F.3d 352, 358 (5th Cir. 2001). "The `minimum contacts' inquiry is fact intensive and no one element is decisive; rather[,] the touchstone is whether the defendant's conduct shows that it `reasonably anticipates being haled into court.'" McFadin, 587 F.3d at 759. Because in this case it is undisputed that the Court lacks general jurisdiction over Conoco, see R. Doc. 223 at 9; R. Doc. 264 at 1, the relevant inquiry is whether the Court can exercise specific jurisdiction over Conoco.

Specific jurisdiction lies when the alleged injuries arise from or are directly related to the nonresident defendant's contacts with the forum state. Gundle Lining Const. Corp. v. Adams Cty. Asphalt, Inc., 85 F.3d 201, 205 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) and Quick Techs., Inc. v. Sage Grp. PLC, 313 F.3d 338, 344 (5th Cir. 2002). To determine whether specific jurisdiction exists, a court must "examine the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation to determine whether maintaining the suit offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Gundle Lining, 85 F.3d at 205. Contrary to Conoco's assertion that these contacts must be "systemic," even a single contact can support specific jurisdiction if the defendant "`purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.'" Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985).

In determining whether a defendant has purposefully availed itself to the forum state, three elements are relevant to the court's inquiry. First, the court must limit its evaluation to the defendant's contacts with the forum; the court may not consider the unilateral activity of the plaintiff or a third party. Sangha v. Navig8 ShipMgmt. Private Ltd., 882 F.3d 96, 103 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014)). Second, the contacts establishing specific jurisdiction must be purposeful rather than random, fortuitous, or attenuated to the complained of injury. Id. (citing Walden, 571 U.S. at 285-86). Finally, the defendant must seek some benefit, advantage, or profit by availing itself of the jurisdiction. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475.

In this case, the sole jurisdictional allegation made against Conoco in Plaintiffs' complaint is that Mr. Lopez "was exposed to asbestos during his work for KBR at premises/sites owned and/or operated by. . . Conoco." R. Doc. 196 at ¶ 8(a). The complaint does not state where the Conoco site was located, an issue Conoco points out in its motion to dismiss. R. Doc. 223-1 at 2.

During his deposition Mr. Lopez testified that he "worked offshore on the Conoco packages" and that to go offshore, he would leave from Morgan City, Louisiana. R. Doc. 242-1 at 80, 84, 92. This testimony is problematic in two respects. First, neither the complaint, nor Mr. Lopez' testimony specify where Conoco's offshore site was located. Second, Defendants submit, and Plaintiffs agree, Mr. Lopez "immediately recanted" this testimony. R. Doc. 264 at 4; R. Doc. 242 at 2 (stating "Mr. Lopez seemed to recant going offshore on the Conoco package but affirmed building it in the yard" later in his deposition). The relevant portions of Mr. Lopez' deposition reads as follows:

Q. I think you testified, Fred, that you had worked on a Conoco platform?

A. Yeah. We—we built a Conoco package and we work on—not offshore. That was in the yard.

Q. Okay. All right.

A. I'm sorry.

Q. No, that's okay. So the Conoco platform, that was inside the yard at Brown & Root.

A. Yes.

R. Doc. 242-1 at 95. Based on Mr. Lopez' testimony that KBR "didn't fabricate anything" at its Morgan City, Louisiana location, R. Doc. 242-1 at 81, the Court infers Mr. Lopez' statement that he worked on a Conoco platform "inside the yard" refers to work performed in Houston, Texas. Plaintiffs have offered no evidence to the contrary.

In addition to Mr. Lopez' confused, and apparently recanted testimony, in their opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Plaintiffs state "Upon information and belief, [Mr. Lopez'] co-workers can offer testimony against. . . Conoco," including that they went "offshore with Mr. Lopez to work on Conoco platforms." R. Doc. 242 at 3. Later in their motion, and without reference to these unnamed co-workers, Plaintiffs state the Conoco platforms were "located on the Louisiana Continental Shelf," but site no evidence for that assertion. R. Doc. 242 at 6.[3] This potential testimony and unsubstantiated assertion are the only evidence Plaintiffs offer to establish that Conoco's contacts with Louisiana— specifically owning and/or operating a platform situated in Louisiana's Continental Shelf—caused or contributed to Mr. Lopez' alleged injuries.

The Court finds this issue dispositive: either Mr. Lopez traveled offshore to work on a Conoco platform situated in Louisiana's Continental Shelf where he was exposed to asbestos, which the Court concludes would establish specific in personam jurisdiction over Conoco, or his work for Conoco was based entirely at KBR's Houston, Texas facility, which the Court concludes would bar this Court from exercising in personam jurisdiction over Conoco. Thus, the Court considers whether these statements—that "upon information and belief" two witnesses will testify that they went offshore with Mr. Lopez to work on a Conoco platform located in Louisiana's Continental Shelf— satisfies Plaintiffs' burden of establishing this Court's jurisdiction over Conoco.

Although the Court must resolve all factual disputes in Plaintiffs' favor, particularly when the Court does not hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue, see Latshaw v. Johnston, 167 F.3d 208, 211 (5th Cir. 1999), the Court "need not accept as true conclusory statements based solely `on information and belief.'" The Leader's Institute, LLC v. Jackson, No. 14-3572, 2015 WL 4508424, at [*16] n.13 (N.D. Tex. July 24, 2015) (quoting Panda Brandywine Corp. v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 253 F.3d 865, 869 (5th Cir. 2001)); see also Bonvillain v. La. Land & Expl. Co., 702 F. Supp. 2d 667, 682 (E.D. La. 2010). As a result, the Court finds these assertions, made for the first time in Plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to Conoco's motion to dismiss, fail to make a prima facie case of establishing jurisdiction over Conoco, particularly in light of Mr. Lopez' sworn testimony that he did not work on a Conoco offshore platform.

Even assuming Plaintiffs had offered these unnamed witnesses' testimony that they went "offshore with Mr. Lopez to work on Conoco platforms," the witnesses offer no testimony specifying where these offshore platforms were located. Thus, in their opposition to Conoco's motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs essentially ask the Court to make two inferences in support of their jurisdictional allegations: (1) that two witnesses would actually testify that they went "offshore with Mr. Lopez to work on Conoco platforms," and (2) that these Conoco platforms were situated within Louisiana's jurisdictional boundaries. Plaintiffs point to no evidence that would allow the Court to make such an inference.

Nevertheless, the Court finds that evidence substantiating Plaintiffs' assertion that Mr. Lopez went offshore to work on a Conoco platform situated within Louisiana's jurisdictional boundaries and was exposed to asbestos would create a prima

facie showing of specific jurisdiction over Conoco. This is sufficient to establish a "preliminary showing of jurisdiction." Repub. Bus. Credit, LLC v. Greystone & Co., Inc., No. 13-5535, 2013 WL 6388657, at [*4] (E.D. La. Dec. 6, 2013) (describing a preliminary showing of jurisdiction as "something less than a prima facie showing and requires the presentation of factual allegations that suggest with reasonable particularity the possible existence of the necessary contacts"). Accordingly, the Court will order the parties to undergo jurisdictional discovery in order to obtain this evidence. See Kelly v. Syria Shell Petrol. Dev. B.V., 213 F.3d 841, 855 (5th Cir. 2000) ("A district court is not required to defer ruling on a jurisdictional motion until all discovery contemplated by the plaintiff has been accomplished; instead, an opportunity for discovery is required." (citing Patterson v. Dietze, Inc., 764 F.2d 1145, 1147 n.4 (5th Cir. 1985))).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that by no later than July 22, 2019 Plaintiffs obtain and file evidence substantiating their assertion that Mr. Lopez' "co-workers can offer testimony against. . . Conoco," including that they went "offshore with Mr. Lopez to work on Conoco platforms," located on the Louisiana Continental Shelf. This discovery order is limited to that purpose only. In the event the Court does not receive any evidence from Plaintiffs by this deadline, the Court will grant Conoco's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court will defer ruling on Conoco's motion until that time. [1] On November 8, 2018, Jessica and Alfred Soliz, who contend they are Mr. Lopez' biological children, filed suit bringing claims against several defendants and alleging substantially similar causes of action to the case at bar. No. 19-9928, R. Doc. 1-2. On June 10, 2019, the Court consolidated the two matters. R. Doc. 268. The instant order concerns Plaintiffs Maricela Lopez and Federico Lopez III only. [2] Mr. Lopez originally filed this lawsuit in Orleans Parish Civil District Court. R. Doc. 1-1. Plaintiff was deposed on August 16, 2017. During that deposition, Mr. Lopez testified that his alleged exposure arose, in part, out of activities connected to Defendants' Outer Continental Shelf operations. Based on this testimony, on September 13, 2017, Defendants removed the case to this Court. The case was initially assigned to Judge Vance but was immediately reassigned to Chief Judge Engelhardt due to a conflict of interest. R. Doc. 3. In October 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. R. Doc. 15. On January 24, 2018, Chief Judge Engelhardt denied Plaintiffs' motion to remand. R. Doc. 42. In May 2018, the case was again reassigned to Judge Vance following Chief Judge Engelhardt's investiture to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. R. Doc. 52. The case was immediately reassigned to Judge Morgan because of Judge Vance's previously stated conflict of interest. R. Doc. 53. On July 26, 2018, Judge Morgan recused herself, and the case was reassigned to the undersigned. R. Doc. 101.

[3] Plaintiffs also state, again without citation, that "[i]t is undisputed that the oil platforms upon which Mr. Lopez worked and where he was exposed to asbestos were within 100 miles of the Louisiana coast." R. Doc. 242 at 7. Moreover, in its motion, it appears Conoco does dispute whether the Conoco platform upon which Mr. Lopez allegedly worked was located in Louisiana's Continental Shelf. See generally R. Docs. 223, 264.

Sources

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