Stevenson v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. (2018)

Our plain-English summary of Stevenson v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, July 10, 2018).

Susan Stevenson sued as personal representative of her mother, Judith Minneci, who was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma in 2012 and died of it in May 2015. The complaint alleged that Minneci was exposed to asbestos-contaminated talcum powder between 1942 and 1985. Witnesses testified that she regularly used Johnson & Johnson baby powder. One defendant, Imerys Talc America, was the successor to a company that sold talc to Johnson & Johnson for one month in 1980, outside Florida. Imerys moved for summary judgment, arguing in part that the Florida federal court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. The plaintiff conceded there was no general jurisdiction and argued for specific jurisdiction. She relied on the predecessor's Florida business registration and registered agent from 1966 to 1978, and on the foreseeability that the talc would reach Florida consumers. The court held that those contacts did not relate to the claims, since they ended before the 1980 sale. It also held that Imerys had not purposefully availed itself of Florida, and that foreseeability alone was not enough. The court granted the motion on jurisdiction, denied it otherwise, and dismissed the action against Imerys.

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, Middle District of Florida
• Decided: July 10, 2018
• Docket: Case No. 6:17-cv-417-Orl-40DCI
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Florida

Outcome. The court granted Imerys Talc America's summary judgment motion for lack of specific personal jurisdiction in Florida and dismissed the action against Imerys; the plaintiff lost as to Imerys.

What the court held. A court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident supplier only if the plaintiff's claims arise from the supplier's own contacts with the forum and the supplier purposefully availed itself of the forum. Foreseeability that its product would reach the forum is not enough.

Issues decided: Personal Jurisdiction.

The people and their exposure

• Judith I. Minneci: peritoneal mesothelioma; died

Who	Work	Where	When	Products
Judith I. Minneci	personal hygiene use of baby powder	Florida	1942-1985	talc and vermiculite, Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder

The defendants

• Imerys Talc America, Inc. (supplier)
• Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. (manufacturer)
• Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (manufacturer)
• Johnson & Johnson (manufacturer)
• Publix Supermarkets, Inc.

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.

SUSAN STEVENSON, Plaintiff,

v.

CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS CO., IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON

CONSUMER INC., PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC. and JOHNSON & JOHNSON, Defendants.

Case No. 6:17-cv-417-Orl-40DCI.

July 10, 2018.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division.

Susan Stevenson, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Judith I. Minneci, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Jagolinzer, The Ferraro Law Firm, Gabriel S. Saade, The Ferraro Law Firm & Juan P. Bauta, II, Ferraro Law Firm. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co., individually and as successor in interest to Charles Mathieu, Defendant, represented by Aliyya Haque, Alston & Bird, LLP, pro hac vice, Cathy R. Gordon, Litchfield Cavo, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric K. Falk, Rawle & Henderson, Geralyn M. Passaro, Litchfield Cavo, LLP, Morgan Fairthorne Spector, Litchfield Cavo, LLP, Angela Marie Swenka, Litchfield Cavo, LLP & Karleen Murphy, Dentons US LLP.

Imerys Talc America, Inc., individually and as successor in interest to and/or F/K/A Luzenac America Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron Karl Block, Alston & Bird, LLP, pro hac vice, Aliyya Haque, Alston & Bird, LLP, pro hac vice, Anna Sumner Pieschel, Alston & Bird, LLP, Cathy R. Gordon, Litchfield Cavo, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric K. Falk, Rawle & Henderson, Geralyn M. Passaro, Litchfield Cavo, LLP, Morgan Fairthorne Spector, Litchfield Cavo, LLP, Angela Marie Swenka, Litchfield Cavo, LLP & Karleen Murphy, Dentons US LLP.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. & Johnson & Johnson, Defendants, represented by Cori Steinmann, Bailey Crowe Arnold and Majors, pro hac vice, Eric D. Cook, Willcox & Savage, PC, pro hac vice, John Ewald, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin M. Hynes, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew Conigliaro, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, Melvin David Bailey, Bailey Crowe Arnold and Majors, pro hac vice, Michael David Sloan, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, Nina Trovato, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan S. Cobbs, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA & Stephen J. Krigbaum, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA.

Publix Supermarkets, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric D. Cook, Willcox & Savage, PC, pro hac vice, James Murdica, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, pro hac vice, John Ewald, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin M. Hynes, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew Conigliaro, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, Meredith Thornburgh White, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, pro hac vice, Michael David Sloan, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, Nina Trovato, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan S. Cobbs, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, Sandra Ko, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah E. Johnson, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen J. Krigbaum, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA.

ORDER

PAUL G. BYRON, District Judge.

This cause comes before the Court without oral argument on Defendant Imerys Talc America, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 166 ("Motion")), and the response and reply thereto (Docs. 204, 227). With briefing complete, the matter is ripe. Upon consideration, the Motion is due to be granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND

This products liability suit arises from the death of Judith Minneci ("Decedent"). In 2012, Decedent was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma; she died of that disease on May 24, 2015. (Doc. 196, ¶¶ 1-2; Doc. 200, ¶¶ 1-2). In February 2017, Plaintiff Susan Stevenson, Decedent's daughter and personal representative of Decedent's estate, initiated this suit. (Doc.

196, ¶ 3; Doc. 200, ¶ 3). Plaintiff alleges that Decedent's mesothelioma was caused by her exposure to "asbestos and asbestiform fibers in. . . asbestos-contaminated talc and talcum powders."[1] (Doc. 1, ¶ 4 ("Complaint")). The Complaint named eleven Defendants, all of whom allegedly "designed, manufactured, sold and/or distributed asbestos-containing [talcum powder] products" used by Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 12-22). This Order only addresses the summary judgment motion filed by Defendant Imerys Talc America, Inc. ("Imerys"). Imerys is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California. (Doc. 196, ¶ 4). Imerys' predecessor-in-interest mined and processed talc, and sold processed talc to Johnson & Johnson for one month in 1980 outside Florida.[2] (Id. ¶¶ 5-6).

The Complaint alleges that, between 1942 and 1985, Decedent was exposed to asbestos-contaminated talcum powder. (Id. ¶¶ 7; see also Doc. 203-2, 16:14-21, 19:7-21). In their depositions, Plaintiff and Plaintiff's brother testified that Decedent used Johnson & Johnson baby powder as part of her regular hygiene routine. (Doc. 203-2, 16:14-21; Doc. 203-3, 66:24-67:2, 67:22-25; Doc. 203-8, 10:6-10, 12:20-24). Plaintiff contends that Decedent's regular exposure to asbestos-laced powder brought about her death.

The Complaint asserts two claims against Imerys: (1) negligent failure to warn, and (2) strict liability for the manufacture and distribution of an unreasonably dangerous product. (Doc. 2). Imerys moves for summary judgment on both counts, in part for lack of personal jurisdiction over Imerys. (Doc. 166, pp. 7-12; Doc. 227, pp. 2-4). Plaintiff opposes, pointing to two contacts between Imerys and Florida that purportedly support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Imerys: (1) Cyprus was registered to do business in Florida from February 1966 until 1978, and (2) Cyprus had a registered agent in Miami, Florida, during the same time frame. (Doc. 204-7). Plaintiff also maintains that Imerys knew or should have known that the talc it supplied to Johnson & Johnson would reach consumers in Florida. (Doc. 204, ¶ 40).

Because the personal jurisdiction inquiry is dispositive, the Court does not address the other arguments raised in the Motion.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"In resolving a motion for summary judgment based upon lack of personal jurisdiction, the court is required to accept as true the allegations of plaintiff's complaint, and deny the motion if these allegations state a prima facie case of jurisdiction." Ruiz de Molina v. Merritt & Furman Ins. Agency, 207 F.3d 1351, 1356 (11th Cir. 2000). If the parties' allegations and evidence conflict, "the plaintiff's evidence is to be believed and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in his favor." Id. III. DISCUSSION

A. The Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over Imerys

Imerys maintains that it is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction. (Doc. 166, pp. 7-12). Plaintiff opposes; acknowledging the absence of general personal jurisdiction but asserting the Court has specific personal jurisdiction. (Doc. 204, p. 9 n.25, pp. 9-14).[3] In support, Plaintiff generally avers that its claims against Imerys arise from Imerys' contacts with Florida. (Doc. 204, ¶ 45). Plaintiff points to Imerys' predecessor-in-interest being registered to do business in Florida and having a registered agent in Florida from 1966 through 1978 as relevant contacts supporting personal jurisdiction.[4] (Doc. 204, ¶ 45). Also, Plaintiff contends that personal jurisdiction over Imerys can be justified by the fact that Imerys sold talc to Johnson & Johnson knowing that its talc would reach "people throughout the United States and the world." (Id. ¶ 40).

1. Legal Framework

A judgment rendered without personal jurisdiction is void. Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 285 (1961). "A federal district court in Florida may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the same extent that a Florida court may, so long as the exercise is consistent with federal due process requirements." Licciardello v. Lovelady, 544 F.3d 1280, 1283 (11th Cir. 2008). Personal jurisdiction disputes involve a two-step inquiry: "(1) whether personal jurisdiction exists. . . under Florida's long-arm statute, and (2) if so, whether that exercise of jurisdiction would violate the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339, 1350 (11th Cir. 2013). The parties' dispute centers on the second part: whether exercising jurisdiction over Imerys would violate the Due Process Clause.

"The Due Process Clause protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful `contacts, ties, or relations.'" Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72 (1985) (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945)). A defendant must "have certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" Int'l Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 316 (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). The "minimum contacts" inquiry "focuses on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation." Walden, 571 U.S. at 284. "In products-liability cases like this one, it is the defendant's purposeful availment that makes jurisdiction consistent with `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 880 (2011) (plurality opinion). The primary inquiry for defendant manufacturers or suppliers is "whether the defendant's activities manifest an intention to submit to the power of a sovereign." Id. at 882. Where a defendant sends goods to a forum, it will be subject to personal jurisdiction in that forum only if the defendant "targeted the forum." Id. Mere foreseeability that goods would reach the forum does not suffice. Id.

To decide whether the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant comports with due process, the Court applies a three-prong test, examining:

(1) whether the plaintiff's claims "arise out of or relate to" at least one of the defendant's contacts with the forum; (2) whether the nonresident defendant "purposefully availed" himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefit of the forum state's laws; and (3) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Louis Vuitton Malletier, 736 F.3d at 1355. The plaintiff bears the initial burden of demonstrating the first two prongs. Id. If the plaintiff does so, the burden shifts to the defendant, who "must make a `compelling case' that the exercise of jurisdiction would violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Id. (quoting Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc. v. Food Movers Int'l, Inc., 593 F.3d 1249, 1267 (11th Cir. 2010)).

2. Prong 1: Relatedness

The first prong asks whether the claims at issue "arise out of or relate to" the defendant's contacts with the forum. Louis Vuitton, 736 F.3d at 1355. This inquiry is focused "on the direct causal relationship between the defendant, the forum, and the litigation." Id. at 1355-56 (quoting Fraser v. Smith, 594 F.3d 842, 850 (11th Cir. 2010)).

Plaintiff relies on two contacts between Imerys' and Florida to satisfy this prong: (1) Cyprus (Imerys' predecessor-in-interest) was registered to do business in Florida between 1966 and 1978, and (2) Cyprus had a registered agent in Florida during those years. (Doc. 204, ¶ 45; Doc. 204-7) Plaintiff's claims against Imerys do not "arise out of or relate to" Imerys' contacts with the forum. See id. at 1355. It is undisputed that Imerys did not supply Johnson & Johnson with talc during the years that Imerys was registered to do business in (and had a registered agent in) Florida, and Plaintiff does not assert that these contacts have anything to do with the claims at issue. Plaintiff's foreseeableness argument is equally unavailing, both as it relates to the relatedness prong and the minimum contacts inquiry more broadly.[5]

3. Prong 2: Purposeful Availment

To decide the purposeful availment prong, district courts evaluate the nonresident defendant's forum contacts and gauge whether those contacts "(1) are related to the plaintiff's cause of action; (2) involve some act by which the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privileges of doing business within the forum; and (3) are such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the forum." Louis Vuitton, 736 F.3d at 1357.

Imerys' contacts with Florida do not suggest it purposefully availed itself to — or otherwise targeted — the state of Florida. See J. McIntyre, 564 U.S. at 882; Louis Vuitton, 736 F.3d at 1357. First, Imerys' scant contacts with Florida are unrelated to Plaintiff's claims. Second, Plaintiff has made no showing that Imerys took affirmative steps to avail itself of the privileges of

doing business in Florida. Finally, in the Court's view, Imerys' minimal contacts with Florida are not such that it would "reasonably anticipate being haled into court" in Florida. Accordingly, Plaintiff has likewise failed to establish the purposeful availment prong.

Since Plaintiff failed to carry its burden of establishing the first two prongs of the Louis Vuitton due process test, the Court need not address the third part. See 736 F.3d at 1355. As the foregoing analysis demonstrates, Imerys lacks the requisite "minimum contacts" with Florida to support the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction.

This conclusion is fortified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Banton Industries, Inc. v. Dimatic Die & Tool Co., 801 F.2d 1283 (11th Cir. 1986). In Banton, the court found that an Alabama district court lacked specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant component parts supplier that sold allegedly defective pulleys to the plaintiff in Alabama over the course of approximately four years. 801 F.2d at 1284.

Imerys' contacts with Florida are even more tenuous than the Banton defendant's. Imerys delivered its products to Johnson & Johnson outside of Florida, while the Banton defendant sent the pulleys to the plaintiff in Alabama. See id. Moreover, Imerys only supplied Johnson & Johnson talc for one month in 1980, while the Banton defendant sold parts to the Alabama plaintiff over a period of years. See id.

The Court is therefore satisfied that exercising specific personal jurisdiction over Imerys would violate the Due Process Clause, and that Imerys' Motion is due to be granted in part.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Defendant Imerys Talc America, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 166) is GRANTED IN PART.

a. The Motion is GRANTED insofar as it moved for summary judgment for want of personal jurisdiction.

b. In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED.

2. The action is DISMISSED as against Defendant Imerys Talc America, Inc.

DONE AND ORDERED.

[1] Talc is a naturally-occurring mineral and the primary ingredient in Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder. (See, e.g., Doc. 166-4). [2] Imerys is the successor-in-interest to Cyprus Industrial Minerals Company ("Cyprus"), the entity that itself sold talc to Johnson & Johnson in 1980. (Doc. 204, ¶¶ 11-14). For purposes of this Order, the Court attributes Cyprus' actions to Imerys. [3] Personal jurisdiction can be general or specific. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011). "`Specific' or `case-linked' jurisdiction `depends on an affiliatio[n] between the forum and the underlying controversy.'" Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283 n.6 (2014) (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919).

[4] It is worth pointing out that Cyprus, Imerys' predecessor, was not registered to do business in Florida during 1980, the month when Imerys' predecessor-in-interest supplied talc to Johnson & Johnson. (Doc. 204-7). Cyprus' registration was withdrawn August 30, 1978. (Id.).

[5] While it might have been foreseeable to Imerys that the talc it mined would end up being used by Florida citizens, that alone is insufficient to vest this Court with personal jurisdiction over Imerys. See McIntyre, 564 U.S. at 883 ("`[I]t is the defendant's actions, not his expectations, that empower a State's courts to subject him to judgment.").

Sources

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