Hodjera et al v. BASF Catalysts, LLC et al
Filing
186
ORDER denying plaintiff's 164 Motion to Amend Complaint, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
10
MATTHEW HODJERA and SYLVIA
HODJERA,
11
Plaintiffs,
v.
12
13
BASF CATALYSTS LLC, et al.,
Case No. C17-48RSL
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
COMPLAINT
Defendants.
14
15
16
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their
17
complaint. Dkt. # 164. The Court previously dismissed without prejudice the plaintiffs’ claims
18
against defendants Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
19
Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, Volkswagen Group of Canada, Dana Companies, LLC, Dana
20
Canada Corp., Imerys Talc America Inc., and Honeywell International Inc., but indicated that if
21
plaintiffs were able to remedy the deficiencies identified, they were free to move to amend their
22
complaint by Friday, June 2, 2017. Dkt. ## 153, 155, 156, 157, 162, 163. This motion follows.
23
Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties and the remainder of the record, the Court denies
24
plaintiffs’ motion for the reasons that follow.1
25
26
1
The Court concludes that this matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument.
Accordingly, defendants’ requests for argument, Dkt. ## 170, 171, 172, are denied.
27
28
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT - 1
1
According to the original complaint, Mr. Hodjera was exposed to asbestos or asbestos-
2
containing products in Toronto, Ontario, between 1986 and 1994. Dkt. # 1-1 at 4. On May 20,
3
2016, Mr. Hodjera was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Id. On December 2, 2016, plaintiffs filed
4
suit in King County Superior Court, alleging that Mr. Hodjera’s mesothelioma had been
5
proximately caused by the manufacture, sale, and/or distribution of asbestos-containing products
6
by the following defendants: BASF Catalysts LLC; BorgWarner Morse Tec Inc.; Central
7
Precision Limited; Charles B. Chrystal Company, Inc.; Dana Companies, LLC; Dana Canada
8
Corp.; DAP Products, Inc.; Felt Products Mfg. Co.; Honeywell International Inc.; Imerys Talc
9
America, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.; Pneumo
10
Abex LLC; Union Carbide Corporation; Vanderbilt Minerals LLC; Volkswagen
11
Aktiengesellschaft; Volkswagen Group of Canada; Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.;
12
Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc.; and Does 1–350, inclusive. Dkt. # 1-1 at 2–3. On January 11,
13
2017, defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. removed the case. Dkt. # 1. As noted
14
above, the Court granted various motions to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs’ original
15
complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to establish specific jurisdiction in Washington.
16
Dkt. ## 153, 155, 156, 157, 162, 163.
17
Courts “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ.
18
P. 15(a)(2). There is a “strong policy in favor of allowing amendment” after “considering four
19
factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and the futility of amendment.”
20
Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363, 1370 (9th Cir. 1994). The underlying purpose of Rule 15 is “to
21
facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Lopez v. Smith,
22
203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). However, if the proposed amendment would be futile (i.e.,
23
it would be immediately subject to dismissal if challenged under Rule 12(b)(6)), there is no
24
reason to put defendants through the unnecessary expense and delay of responding to the
25
amendment. Nordyke v. King, 644 F.3d 776, 787 n.12 (9th Cir. 2011).
26
Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint substantially elaborates on the claims raised in
27
28
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT - 2
1
their original complaint. See Dkt. # 164-1. The proposed amended complaint now contains
2
detailed factual allegations about Mr. Hodjera’s work in an automotive repair department in
3
Ontario, Canada during the summer of 1986, including allegations that Mr. Hodjera worked with
4
vehicles and parts containing asbestos that were manufactured and/or distributed by various
5
defendants. Dkt. # 164-1 at 7–11.
6
Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint does not, however, remedy the jurisdictional
7
deficiencies identified in the Court’s earlier orders. As in their original complaint, plaintiffs
8
argue that specific jurisdiction in Washington exists over various corporate defendants whose
9
products exposed Mr. Hodjera to asbestos in Canada. Accordingly, plaintiffs still fail to satisfy
10
the second prong of the specific jurisdiction test: the requirement that their claims arise out of
11
the defendant’s purposeful contacts with the forum state. There is no allegation that
12
Mr. Hodjera’s asbestos exposure would not have occurred but for the defendants’ contacts with
13
Washington. See Doe v. American Nat. Red Cross, 112 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 1997).
14
Because plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint fails to remedy the previously identified
15
jurisdictional deficiencies in their original complaint, amendment of plaintiffs’ complaint to
16
reinitiate suit against the dismissed defendants – Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc.; Volkswagen
17
Group of America, Inc.; Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft; Volkswagen Group of Canada; Dana
18
Companies, LLC; Dana Canada Corp.; Imerys Talc America Inc.; and Honeywell International
19
Inc. – would be futile. See Nordyke, 644 F.3d at 787 n.12. The claims against those defendants,
20
which were previously dismissed without prejudice, are hereby dismissed with prejudice.
21
22
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint (Dkt.
# 164) is DENIED.
23
Dated this 31st day of July, 2017.
24
A
25
Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT - 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?