Hodjera et al v. BASF Catalysts, LLC et al

Filing 163

ORDER granting Defendant Dana Canada Corp.'s 98 Motion to Dismiss; Plaintiffs' claims against Dana Canada are dismissed without prejudice, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (Dana Canada Corp. terminated.) (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

MATTHEW HODJERA and SYLVIA
HODJERA,

10

Plaintiffs,

11
12

Case No. C17-48RSL

v.
BASF CATALYSTS LLC, et al.,

13

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
DANA CANADA CORPORATION’S
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK
OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on defendant Dana Canada Corporation’s motion to

16

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dkt. # 98. Plaintiffs Matthew and Sylvia Hodjera, a

17

married couple, allege that Mr. Hodjera’s mesothelioma was proximately caused by various

18

corporate defendants’ manufacture, sale, and/or distribution of asbestos-containing products.

19

Defendant Dana Canada Corporation (“Dana Canada”) moves to dismiss, arguing that this Court

20

lacks personal jurisdiction over it. Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits

21

submitted by the parties, the Court grants the motion for the reasons that follow.1

22
23
24
25
26

1

The Court concludes that this matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument.
Accordingly, Dana Canada’s request for argument, Dkt. ## 98, 116, and plaintiffs’ request for argument,
Dkt. # 113, are denied.

27
28

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DANA CANADA
CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 1

I. BACKGROUND

1
2

According to the complaint, Mr. Hodjera was exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing

3

products in Toronto, Ontario, between 1986 and 1994. Dkt. # 1-1 at 4. On May 20, 2016,

4

Mr. Hodjera was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Id.

5

On December 2, 2016, plaintiffs filed suit in King County Superior Court, alleging that

6

Mr. Hodjera’s mesothelioma had been proximately caused by the manufacture, sale, and/or

7

distribution of asbestos-containing products by the following defendants: BASF Catalysts LLC;

8

BorgWarner Morse Tec Inc.; Central Precision Limited; Charles B. Chrystal Company, Inc.;

9

Dana Companies, LLC; Dana Canada Corp.; DAP Products, Inc.; Felt Products Mfg. Co.;

10

Honeywell International Inc.; Imerys Talc America, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Johnson &

11

Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.; Pneumo Abex LLC; Union Carbide Corporation;

12

Vanderbilt Minerals LLC; Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft; Volkswagen Group of Canada;

13

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.; Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc.; and Does 1–350,

14

inclusive. Dkt. # 1-1 at 2–3. On January 11, 2017, defendant Volkswagen Group of America,

15

Inc. removed the case. Dkt. # 1. Various defendants have moved to dismiss for lack of personal

16

jurisdiction.

17
18

II. DISCUSSION
Dana Canada argues that the complaint fails to allege facts supporting personal

19

jurisdiction over it. Dana Canada is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business

20

in Ontario. Dkt. # 99, ¶¶ 2, 3. Dana Canada is not registered to do business in Washington; nor

21

does it have facilities, real property, or employees in Washington. Id., ¶ 4. The complaint’s

22

only allegations specific to Dana Canada are that it has “been engaged in the mining, processing,

23

manufacture, sale, and distribution of asbestos or asbestos-containing products and machinery

24

requiring or calling for the use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products,” Dkt. # 1-1 at 5,

25

and that it “knew or should have known of the specific medical and scientific data, literature and

26

test results relating to the manufacture, as well as to the grinding and drilling, of automobile

27
28

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DANA CANADA
CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 2

1

asbestos containing brake linings and/or clutch friction materials, which first began to be known

2

or knowledgeable to defendants in the 1930's,” Dkt. # 1-1 at 11–12. The complaint does not

3

allege that Dana Canada’s products were present in Toronto between 1986 and 1994. See

4

generally Dkt. # 1-1.
Due process requires a district court to have personal jurisdiction over a defendant in

5
6

order to adjudicate a claim against it. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 753 (2014).

7

Plaintiffs have the burden of demonstrating that the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction

8

over Dana Canada. Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Services, Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d

9

1122, 1128-29 (9th Cir. 2003). Absent an evidentiary hearing, plaintiffs need only make,

10

through the submission of pleadings and affidavits, a prima facie showing of facts supporting

11

personal jurisdiction to avoid dismissal. Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1071

12

(9th Cir. 2001). Provided the long-arm statute of the state in which the Court sits permits the

13

Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction,2 there are two ways to establish that the Court has

14

personal jurisdiction over a particular defendant. Id. at 753-55. This order considers each in

15

turn.

16

A.

17

General Jurisdiction
A defendant is subject to a court’s general personal jurisdiction when its contacts are “so

18

constant and pervasive as to render it essentially at home” in the forum. Daimler AG, 134 S. Ct.

19

at 751 (internal quotation and brackets omitted). General jurisdiction over a party ensures

20

personal jurisdiction over that party for any claim, regardless of that claim’s relationship to the

21

forum. Id. at 761. Because Dana Canada is not incorporated in Washington and does not have

22

its principal place of business in Washington, the Court agrees that it lacks general personal

23

jurisdiction over Dana Canada. See Daimler AG, 134 S. Ct. at 760–61 (quoting Goodyear

24

Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)).

25
26

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).

27
28

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DANA CANADA
CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 3

1
2

B.

Specific Jurisdiction
A defendant may also be sued in a forum where it has minimal contacts, provided those

3

contacts are purposefully directed at the forum, the claim arises out of those contacts, and the

4

exercise of jurisdiction over that party is reasonable. See Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d

5

1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2006).

6

Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the second prong of the specific jurisdiction, which requires that

7

their claim arise out of the defendant’s purposeful contacts with the forum state. Though

8

plaintiffs allege that Mr. Hodjera’s asbestos exposure occurred in Toronto, Ontario, where Dana

9

Canada presumably conducted business, Dkt. # 1-1 at 4, plaintiffs have not alleged that

10

Mr. Hodjera’s exposure in Ontario would not have occurred “but for” Dana Canada’s contacts

11

with Washington, as is required for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Dana

12

Canada. See Menken v. Emm, 503 F.3d 1050, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007).

13

Moreover, plaintiffs have failed to argue that Dana Canada purposefully availed itself of

14

this Washington forum by selling products in Washington state or otherwise. See generally Dkt.

15

# 113. Instead, plaintiffs argue that the fairness prong of the specific jurisdiction test should be

16

sufficient in this case: “it would be manifestly unfair to this dying plaintiff and his wife to break

17

this case up into multiple claims and require plaintiffs to start over in many different states.”

18

Dkt. # 113 at 11. While the Court sympathizes with the plaintiffs’ circumstances, the

19

Constitution does not permit it to exercise jurisdiction over a particular defendant merely

20

because it would be most fair to the plaintiff. See Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310,

21

319 (1945) (“[The due process] clause does not contemplate that a state may make binding a

22

judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no

23

contacts, ties, or relations.”). All three prongs of the test must be met to establish specific

24

personal jurisdiction in keeping with due process.

25
26

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claims against Dana Canada must be dismissed for lack of
personal jurisdiction.

27
28

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DANA CANADA
CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 4

1
2

C.

Leave to Amend
Plaintiffs alternatively request leave to amend. Dkt. # 80 at 12 n.4. “[A] district court

3

should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it

4

determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez

5

v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). To the extent plaintiffs can, consistent with their

6

Rule 11 obligations, amend their complaint to include allegations remedying the deficiencies

7

identified in this order, they may file a motion to amend and attach a proposed pleading for the

8

Court’s consideration by Friday, June 2, 2017.

9
10
11

For all the foregoing reasons, Dana Canada’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. # 98, is
GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claims against Dana Canada are dismissed without prejudice.

12
13

DATED this 23rd day of May, 2017.

14
15
16

A

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DANA CANADA
CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 5