Peeler v. SRG Global Coatings, LLC

Filing 111

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 76 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Defendant E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Defendant The Chemours Company, Defendant The Chemours Company FC, LLC - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that def endants E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, The Chemours Company, The Chemours Company FC, LLC, Corteva, Inc., and DuPont de Nemours, Inc's motion to dismiss [Doc. 75] is GRANTED for lack of personal jurisdiction. Signed by Sr. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 8/30/2024. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
MICHELLE PEELER, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
SRG GLOBAL COATINGS, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:23-CV-23-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Plaintiff initially filed this putative class action against defendant SRG Global
Coatings, LLC (“SRG”) in February 2023. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
[Doc. 47] in April 2024 that added several defendants, including E.I. du Pont de Nemours
and Company, The Chemours Company, The Chemours Company FC, LLC, Corteva,
Inc., and DuPont de Nemours, Inc. (collectively, “DuPont”). This matter is before the
Court on the DuPont defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. 76].
I.

Background
Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges injuries and damages resulting from the “migration of

hazardous carcinogenic chemicals” and “metals” from its manufacturing facilities in
Portageville, Missouri, including hexavalent chromium, chromium, arsenic, PFAS, and
nickel, as well as other hazardous chemicals and metals. [Doc. 47 at ¶¶ 1-2, 32, et seq.]
Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that “Defendant SRG failed to adequately prevent

migration of the contaminated groundwater plume from the SRG site into the aquifer
under Portageville, Missouri, that caused dangerous pollutants to enter the drinking water
of Portageville residents.” [Id. at ¶ 107(d).]
Plaintiffs allege that DuPont and other recently-added defendants “designed,
manufactured, formulated, promoted, marketed and sold (directly and indirectly) PFAS
products that were used in SRG’s electroplating manufacturing processes.” [Id. at ¶ 33.]
Plaintiffs bring claims for strict liability design defect (Count III) and negligence (Count
IV) against DuPont and others.
DuPont has moved to dismiss. Because this Court will grant the motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction, this Court need not address DuPont’s other arguments
for dismissal.
II.

Discussion
In a diversity action such as this one, the Court “may assume jurisdiction over the

nonresident defendants only to the extent permitted by the long-arm statute of the forum
state and by the Due Process Clause.” Romak USA, Inc. v. Rich, 384 F.3d 979, 984 (8th
Cir. 2004).
To survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the non-moving
party need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction; that is, the “plaintiff must state
sufficient facts in the complaint to support a reasonable inference that defendants may be
subjected to jurisdiction in the forum state.” Steinbuch v. Cutler, 518 F.3d 580, 585 (8th
Cir. 2008).

2

Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1780 (2017)
(“BMS”). The exercise of general jurisdiction over a corporation may take place where
“the corporation is fairly regarded as at home.” Id. (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires
Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 924 (2011)). “A court with general jurisdiction
may hear any claim against that defendant, even if all the incidents underlying the claim
occurred in a different State.” Id. Here, the DuPont group is comprised of Delaware
corporations with their principal place of business in Delaware. Nothing in the complaint
provides any basis for claiming that DuPont’s contacts are “so continuous and systematic
as to render [them] essentially at home” in Missouri. Daimler, 571 U.S. at 139; see also
Lizama v. Venus Laboratories, Inc., 679 F. Supp. 3d 848, 856 (E.D. Mo. 2023) Thus, this
Court does not have general jurisdiction over DuPont.
“Specific jurisdiction is very different. In order for a state court to exercise
specific jurisdiction, ‘the suit’ must ‘aris[e] out of or relat[e] to the defendant’s contacts
with the forum.’” Id. (quoting Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746,754 (2014)).
“Specific personal jurisdiction can be exercised by a federal court in a diversity suit only
if authorized by the forum state’s long-arm statute and permitted by the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Viasystems, Inc. v. EBM-Papst St. Georgen
GmbH & Co., KG, 646 F.3d 589, 593 (8th Cir. 2011). The Missouri Long-Arm Statute
provides that jurisdiction extends to “any cause of action arising from” the “transaction of
business within” or the “commission of a tortious act” within Missouri. § 506.500.1(1),
(3) RSMo. The Missouri legislature’s objective in enacting the statute “was to extend the
3

jurisdiction of the courts of this state over nonresident defendants to that extent
permissible under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States.” State ex rel. Deere & Co. v. Pinnell, 454 S.W.2d 889,
892 (Mo. banc 1970). Thus, critical to the “analysis is whether the exercise of personal
jurisdiction in this case comports with due process.” Clune v. Alimak AB, 233 F.3d 538,
541 (8th Cir. 2000). The Constitution’s Due Process Clause requires that there be
“minimum contacts” between the nonresident defendant and 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. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 315 (1945) (internal quotations
omitted).
“[T]here must be ‘an affiliation between the forum and the underlying
controversy, principally, [an] activity or occurrence that takes place in the forum State.’”
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 137 S. Ct. at 1780 (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires
Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)). In other words, “specific
jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with, the
very controversy that establishes jurisdiction.” Id. Moreover, specific jurisdiction “must
arise out of contacts that the defendant himself creates with the forum.” Walden v. Fiore,
571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014); see also Fastpath, Inc. v. Arbela Techs. Corp., 760 F.3d 816,
821 (8th Cir. 2014) (for specific jurisdiction to exist, “the relationship must arise out of
contacts that the defendant himself creates with the forum State”).
Here, the complaint alleges no facts demonstrating any connection between
plaintiffs’ claims and the activities of DuPont in Missouri such that this Court’s exercise
4

of personal jurisdiction comports with due process. Simply alleging plaintiffs suffered an
injury in Missouri is not enough to permit the exercise of specific jurisdiction, as the
Supreme Court has made clear that “mere injury to a forum resident is not a sufficient
connection to the forum.” Walden, 571 U.S. at 290. Plaintiffs do not even allege that
defendants sold any PFAS or products containing PFAS to SRG for SRG’s use in
Missouri; plaintiffs allege only that the DuPont defendants sold PFAS to other
companies, which then allegedly sold products using PFAS to SRG in Missouri. [Doc.
47 at ¶ 63.] Indeed, DuPont submitted affidavits that defendants have not identified any
direct sales to SRG, its predecessor, or other defendants/distributors who may have sold
products to SRG or other relevant defendants in Missouri. Where, as here, a defendant
raises through affidavits or other means a meritorious challenge to personal jurisdiction,
“the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove jurisdiction by affidavits, testimony, or
documents.” Dever v. Hentzgen Coatings, Inc., 380 F.3d 1070, 1072 (8th Cir. 2004).
Plaintiffs offer no evidence of DuPont’s intent to specifically target Missouri consumers
or the exercise of control over the relevant distributors.
Instead, plaintiffs rely on the theory that DuPont has “consented” to jurisdiction in
Missouri. Specifically, plaintiffs argue that “by registering to do business and
maintaining an agent for service of process in Missouri,” defendants have “consented to
the jurisdiction of Missouri courts for any cause of action[.]” [Doc. 88 at 2 (citing
Knowlton v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 900 F.2d 1196, 1199 (8th Cir. 1990)).] Knowlton,
however, was decided under Minnesota law, which provides that a “foreign corporation
shall be subject to service of process . . . [b]y service on its registered agent” without
5

limitation to “claims arising out of in-state activities . . . .” Id. (citing Minn. Stat. §
303.13). Missouri has no such law. The “plain language of Missouri’s registration
statutes does not mention consent to personal jurisdiction for unrelated claims, nor does it
purport to provide an independent basis for jurisdiction over foreign corporations that
register in Missouri.” State ex re. Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Dolan, 512
S.W.3d 41, 52 (Mo. banc 2017). The Missouri Supreme Court has thus rejected
arguments like plaintiffs’ here, and this Court has, as well.
In Sahm v. Avow Corp., the plaintiffs argued—as plaintiffs do here—that the
nonresident foreign corporation defendant had consented to personal jurisdiction because
it had registered with the Missouri Secretary of State as a prerequisite to doing business
within the state under R.S.Mo. §§ 351.582 and 351.571. No. 4:23-CV-00200-AGF, 2023
WL 8433158, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 5, 2023). The Sahm plaintiffs relied on the United
State Supreme Court’s analysis in Mallory, which held that a foreign corporation was
subject to personal jurisdiction under the Pennsylvania registration statute requiring outof-state corporations to consent to general personal jurisdiction as a condition of
registering to do business in Pennsylvania. Id. (citing Mallory v. Norfolk S. R.R. Co., 600
U.S. 122 (2023)). This Court rejected the Sahm plaintiffs’ argument, finding that “the
statutory scheme in Missouri is not explicit that a foreign corporation registered to do
business in Missouri submits to general jurisdiction in its courts. 2023 WL 8433158 at

6

*4. 1 This Court declines to hold that DuPont has consented to personal jurisdiction in
Missouri.
Because this Court lacks both general and specific jurisdiction over DuPont, this
Court need not reach DuPont’s arguments for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, The Chemours Company, The Chemours Company FC, LLC, Corteva, Inc.,
and DuPont de Nemours, Inc’s motion to dismiss [Doc. 75] is GRANTED for lack of
personal jurisdiction.

Dated this 30th day of August, 2024.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiffs also cite a different case from this Court, Mitchell v. Eli Lilly & Co., 159 F. Supp. 3d
967, 977 (E.D. Mo. 2016), but that case appears to be an outlier.
1

7