Category Archives: Personal Jurisdiction

Magistrate Judge Recommends No Personal Jurisdiction Over Exelon Corporation in Delaware U.S. District Court of Delaware, September 14, 2017

DELAWARE — Plaintiffs Michael and Sally Harding filed claims in Delaware state court due to Michael Harding’s exposure to asbestos while working as a pipefitter for the United States Navy from 1963-67. Defendant Crane Co. removed to federal court. Defendant Exelon Corporation moved for dismissal due to lack of personal jurisdiction. Exelon was not a Delaware business entity and did not have a principal place of business in Delaware.  The plaintiffs did not respond to Exelon’s motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge recommended granting this…

Continue Reading....

Massachusetts Corporation Granted Dismissal for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Supreme Court of New York, New York County, September 7, 2017

Plaintiffs Sean Snowdale and Ryan Snowdale as Co-Executors of the Estate of Donald Kenneth Snowdale initially filed this asbestos-related suit against a number of defendants, including Barnes & Jones, Incorporated on July 6, 2015 in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County (NYCAL). Barnes & Jones answered and asserted the affirmative defense that NYCAL lacked personal jurisdiction over Barnes & Jones as to each and every count in the complaint. On July 20, 2017, Barnes & Jones moved to dismiss based on lack…

Continue Reading....

Car Manufacturer Obtains Dismissal Based on Lack of Personal Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, August 22, 2017

Plaintiffs Harold and Judy Haynes filed suit in Delaware Superior Court on June 3, 2016 alleging that Harold Haynes’ lung cancer diagnosis was caused by asbestos exposure. The plaintiffs specifically alleged that Harold Haynes was exposed to asbestos-containing products as a career auto mechanic for Volkswagen dealerships in Washington and Oregon between 1964 and 1980. On July 15, 2016, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Defendant Volkswagen filed a motion to dismiss based on personal jurisdiction…

Continue Reading....

Brake and Talc Supplier Successfully Move to Dismiss on Lack of Personal Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, July 31, 2017

Following up on prior ACT posts as to the Hodjera suit out of the Western District of Washington, the court granted motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Honeywell International  and Imerys Talc America Inc. under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court reiterated that due process requires a district court to have personal jurisdiction over a defendant in order to adjudicate a claim against it. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 753 (2014).  Further, the plaintiffs…

Continue Reading....

Registered Agents Found Not to be Enough to Establish Personal Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, June 27, 2017

Plaintiff Willie Everett, resident of Missouri, brought suit in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, claiming personal injuries after he allegedly inhaled, ingested, or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers and/or asbestiform fibers emanating from certain products he was working with and around which were manufactured, sold, distributed, or installed by the defendants. The defendants removed the case to federal court on January 19, 2017. The respective Petition contends the defendants maintained registered agents in the state of Missouri and engaged in business in…

Continue Reading....

Action Dismissed Against Canadian Automotive Defendant Based on Lack of Specific Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, May 17, 2017

The plaintiffs filed suit against multiple defendants alleging Mr. Hodjera’s mesothelioma was caused by exposure to the defendants’ products from 1986-94. Volkswagen of Canada (VWGC) moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. The court started its analysis by stating that due process requires the court to have personal jurisdiction over the defendant before it can adjudicate a claim. General jurisdiction is available when the defendant’s “contacts are so constant and pervasive as to render it essentially at home.” The court…

Continue Reading....

No Jurisdiction over Foreign Auto Manufacturer, But Case Remanded for Consideration of Jurisdictional Discovery Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District May 17, 2017

Plaintiffs Kenneth and Carol Jones filed suit against various defendants after Kenneth Jones developed mesothelioma. Defendant Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (VWAG) sought review of an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded. In its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, VWAG submitted a supporting affidavit and the court held an evidentiary hearing to determine this issue. The hearing had no testimony and the trial court received nothing into evidence. The trial…

Continue Reading....

Federal Court Denies Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on Jurisdiction Without Prejudice U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. January 12, 2017

On September 26, 2016, Plaintiff Marc Killam filed suit in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hilsborough County, Florida against various defendants after learning of his asbestosis diagnosis. Killam alleged he was exposed to asbestos through his Naval Service, from 1973-77 aboard the USS McCandless while at sea and in the Philadelphia Navy Yard. Here, Killam claims a number of defendants manufactured, sold, distributed, installed, or promoted the asbestos products with which he came into contact. He also alleged, that from 1978-80, as an…

Continue Reading....

Motion to Dismiss on Lack of Jurisdiction Denied as Limited Discovery is Required U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, January 9, 2016

On October 28, 2015, the plaintiff, Estelle Grimes, widow of plaintiff-decedent Thomas Grimes, brought suit against the defendants and numerous other corporations who also allegedly mined, sold, or distributed asbestos in New Jersey state court. On December 1, 2015, the case was removed from state to federal court. The plaintiff amended the complaint on August 1, 2016. The defendants ACL and Bell filed mirror-image motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on August 4, 2016 before the U.S. District Court for the District of…

Continue Reading....