There’s No Place Like Home: United States Supreme Court Reaffirms Daimler, Sends Out-of-State Plaintiffs Packing In Two Highly Anticipated Cases

The United States Supreme Court has issued two highly-anticipated personal jurisdiction decisions limiting suits against defendants who are not “at home” in a state, or alternatively, did not commit a wrongful act in that state.

Specific Jurisdiction

“General jurisdiction” exists over a defendant only where it is “at home,” generally where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business.  “Specific jurisdiction” exists only when the claims in a lawsuit arises out of a defendant’s connection to the jurisdiction, such as selling products. The Supreme Court reaffirmed these limits on jurisdiction in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, No. 16-466 (June 19, 2017).

Some 678 plaintiffs (592 of whom were out-of-state residents) filed suit in California state court against Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”), asserting various state-law claims based on injuries allegedly caused by a BMS drug called Plavix. BMS moved to quash the non-residents’ suits for lack of jurisdiction. BMS was headquartered and incorporated outside California, so there was no general jurisdiction. Despite the fact that the nonresidents had not taken the drug in California, the California Supreme Court held that California courts had “specific jurisdiction to entertain the nonresidents’ claims.”  The United States Supreme Court reversed.

The California Supreme Court had applied a “sliding scale approach to specific jurisdiction,” finding that BMS’s “extensive contacts with California” permitted a “less direct connection between BMS’s forum activities and plaintiffs’ claims than might otherwise be required.” Because the claims of both the resident plaintiffs and non-resident plaintiffs were similar and “based on the same allegedly defective product and the . . . misleading marketing and promotion of that product,” the “less direct connection” requirement as met. Thus, the court reasoned, it had personal jurisdiction over all the claims of all the plaintiffs, even in the absence of any California conduct as to the out-of-state plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court rejected this in no uncertain terms:

“Under the California approach, the strength of the requisite connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue is relaxed if the defendant has extensive forum contacts that are unrelated to those claims. Our cases provide no support for this approach, which resembles a loose and spurious form of general jurisdiction. For specific jurisdiction, a defendant’s general connections with the forum are not enough….What is needed—and what is missing here—is a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue.”

This is true even if the defendant would suffer minimal or no inconvenience, even if the defendant has extensive contacts with the state, even if the forum had a strong interest in the application of its laws, and even if the forum state were the most convenient location for the litigation. Bristol-Myers should serve to help defendants limit the jurisdictions in which suit may properly be brought, and reduce forum-shopping in mass tort and perhaps other cases.

General Jurisdiction

On the issue of general jurisdiction, BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, No. 16-405 (May 30, 2017), the Supreme Court made clear that its 2014 ruling in Daimler AG v. Bauman precludes the exercise of general jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant unless that defendant has contacts which are so “continuous and systematic” so as to render that defendant essentially at home in the forum state. Thus, the Court rejected multiple theories on which plaintiff attempted to justify jurisdiction over BNSF in Montana.

First, it ruled that the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), a federal law that allows railroad workers to sue their employers for injuries that occur on the job, does not itself create a special rule authorizing jurisdiction over railroads just because they happen to do business in a particular place. Second, and most notably, the Court held that a Montana law that allows courts in the state to exercise jurisdiction over “persons found” was in violation of the Constitution. That is, even if BNSF conceded that it is “found” in Montana, the Court held that exercising jurisdiction over BNSF must still be consistent with the Due Process clause. Under its earlier decision, the Court explained, BNSF Railway can only be sued in Montana if it is “at home” there – something which normally means that the company is either incorporated in the state or has its principal place of business there.

With neither of those criteria met, the railroad was not so “heavily engaged in activity” in Montana as to present the kind of “exceptional” case in which jurisdiction could exist even outside the company’s state of incorporation and principal place of business. Thus, although BNSF could be sued in Montana for claims that are related to its business in Montana, it could not be sued there for claims that aren’t related to anything it did within the state.

Analysis

The Court’s two defense-friendly decisions on jurisdiction should bode well for defendants challenging jurisdiction, even in cases outside these specific factual contexts. General jurisdiction can only exist where a defendant is actually “at home,” and creative efforts – such as California’s “sliding scale” – will not pass constitutional muster to establish specific jurisdiction without a clear connection, such as a wrongful act, actually occurring in the forum state.

Rhode Island Superior Court Finds Limited Discovery Insufficient to Waive Personal Jurisdiction, Reaffirms Importance of Minimum Contacts

Since tgavel scale 01he U.S. Supreme Court’s decision  in Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 134 S.Ct. 746, personal jurisdiction has quickly become a critical issue for asbestos defendants nationally. Perhaps because asbestos cases involve dozens of parties from multiple states, and are often commenced in jurisdictions far from where the exposures occurred, personal jurisdiction has quickly become a “first line” defense.  When and how this defense may be employed, however, is evolving, with Rhode Island being one of the most recent jurisdictions to address these issues in Harold Wayne Murray and Janice M. Murray v. 3M Company, et al., C.A. No. PC-16-0151 (R.I. Super October 13, 2016, Alice B. Gibney, J.).

In the wake of  Bazor v. Abex Corporation et al., C.A. No. PC-10-3965 (R.I. Super. May 2, 2016),  the Superior Court of Rhode Island answered the “when and how” questions by issuing an instructive ruling on what a defendant must do to preserve its right to contest jurisdiction.  The court held that a defense counsel’s “active conduct constitute[d] forfeiture of the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.”  Although the defendant in Bazor forfeited its jurisdictional defense, the court nonetheless analyzed its underlying personal jurisdiction argument, holding that the moving defendant did not have sufficient minimum contacts to exercise specific or general jurisdiction over the defendant or its predecessor.  The court’s analysis therefore addressed two issues: 1) What must a defendant do to preserve a personal jurisdiction defense; and 2) What are the sufficient minimum contacts Rhode Island must have in order do exercise jurisdiction?

First, in regard to preservation of a personal jurisdiction defense, the court clarified its ruling in Bazor.  In Murray, the plaintiff served his complaint on defendant on January 29, 2016.  Defendant acted promptly and filed a motion to dismiss on February 29, 2016.  Though defendant’s counsel participated in four days of depositions prior to filing its motion, the court nonetheless found that defendant’s counsel’s participation in an exigent deposition was insufficient to constitute “forfeiture” of a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction.

Looking to federal jurisprudence for guidance, the court noted that it must examine (1) “any delay in the defendant’s assertion [of the 12(b)(6) defense] and the nature of said delay,” as well as (2) “the nature and extent of a defendant’s conduct prior to raising the motion to dismiss.”  The court further held that the first factor could be met by as little as four months’ delay; but reasoned that the second factor weighed more heavily than the mere passage of time.  The court held that the analysis under the second factor “requires proof that defendant’s conduct was inconsistent with defendant’s assertion that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them.”  (internal citation and quotation omitted).  The level of participation, therefore, appears to be the deciding factor in cases like Bazor and Murray.  Notably, the court found that “Defendant’s participation in discovery was limited and reasonable,” and defendant’s post-filing participation in an additional eleven (11) deposition days did not amount to forfeiture of the lack of personal jurisdiction defense.  Notwithstanding the above, the court did not establish a “bright line” rule to precisely outline the necessary amount of participation required to forfeit a jurisdictional defense.  At most, the court established “[d]elays as short as four (4) months can constitute forfeiture,” however, one-month delays with limited participation in discovery will not.

Although Murray provides more guidance than Bazor, it is not entirely clear where this decision leaves litigants who want to participate in early discovery.  While the Murray decision assuages some fears that participating in any discovery will result in inadvertent forfeiture of a jurisdictional defense, there remains uncertainty of where on the timetable the line crosses from limited and reasonable discovery to potential forfeiture.  Ultimately, the lesson of Murray may be that the defense counsel should file its motion to dismiss timely; i.e. within one-month after being served.  Thereafter, it appears that defense counsel should limit its participation in discovery and timely pursue adjudication of the motion to dismiss.

The court also ruled on the underlying personal jurisdiction argument.  In doing so, the court addressed whether the defendant had sufficient minimum contacts with the forum enabling it to properly exercise specific or general jurisdiction. See Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 754 (2014). When faced with the decision as to whether to assert specific jurisdiction over a party, the Rhode Island Supreme Court has employed a two part test:  1) does the cause of action arise out of the defendant’s contacts with Rhode Island; and if so, 2) whether any relationship among the defendant, forum, and the litigation exists.”

In employing this test in Murray, the superior court concluded it did not have a basis to assert specific jurisdiction over the defendant because “the cause of action does not arise out of Defendants’ contacts with Rhode Island.”  Moreover, plaintiff did not reside in Rhode Island and the cause of action was not based on an occurrence in Rhode Island.  Finally, there was no connection between the moving defendant’s Rhode Island based clients and the current cause of action.  Therefore, the court found that it could not assert specific jurisdiction over the defendant.

The court likewise determined that general jurisdiction did not exist.  In making this finding, the court noted that defendant was incorporated in Virginia, with is principal place of business in Ohio; its officers and executive employees were always located solely in Ohio; it has no offices or employees in Rhode Island; and it did not own or lease any property, sell products, nor has it ever registered to conduct business in Rhode Island.  Although the court found that defendant earned approximately one-tenth percent of its total annual net sales from Rhode Island, the totality of the evidence “cannot suggest that [defendant was] virtually at home in the forum state for the purposes of general jurisdiction.”  (internal citation and quotation omitted).

Ultimately, the Murray court’s holding is welcome news for defendants needing to engage in limited discovery to evaluate a motion to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds.  In addition, the court made clear that “minimum contacts” means what it says, and a defendant with de minimis sales in the state should not be deemed “at home” there.

 

After “Roundup” of Evidence, EPA finds Glyphosphate “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans”

croppyEarlier this month, the EPA issued a position paper regarding the risks of glyphosate.  Notably, in classifying glyphosate’s cancer risk to humans, the EPA states, “The strongest support is for ‘not likely to be carcinogenic to humans’ at doses relevant to human health risk assessment.”

Although the EPA report is not dispositive on the issue and will be followed by with a “final assessment” in early 2017, it is a positive development.  The FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel of the EPA, much like the European Food Safety Authority, is not accepting the recent IARC position that glyphosate is “probably” carcinogenic to humans.  Consequently, causation in litigation involving glyphosate will remain a challenge for plaintiffs’ firms to establish.

Since the IARC position was issued in 2015, plaintiff’s firms have filed a number of lawsuits in California, Illinois, and New York against Monsanto.  In late July, one plaintiffs’ firm filed a motion requesting that the multidistrict panel be in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, where three lawsuits are pending. In total, 21 lawsuits have been filed in 14 district courts nationwide naming Monsanto only.  The parties expect a ruling this fall on whether the matters against Monsanto will be consolidated.

California appellate court bucks national trend, allows plaintiff experts to opine that “every asbestos exposure is a substantial factor”

Courts from around the country have rejected efforts by plaintiff experts to testify that every asbestos exposure is a substantial factor in causing disease. On March 3, 2016, California’s second appellate district went the other way, and held in Davis v. Honeywell International, Inc. that the controversial “every exposure counts” theory is admissible under governing expert witness law.   Thus, although trial courts are supposed to play a “gatekeeper” role in keeping out unreliable expert evidence (Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747), Davis breaks the gate wide open in allowing a jury, not the trial court in its “gatekeeper” role, to decide whether to accept the theory.

Davis was aGATEPICTURE wrongful death case.  Sam Davis  worked as an auto mechanic and home remodeler from approximately 1963 to 1979.  He performed “one or two” brake jobs per day, and always used Bendix brake linings (for which defendant Honeywell was responsible). These linings contained 50 percent chrysotile asbestos by weight.  He was also allegedly exposed to asbestos as a result of his home remodel work.

Prior to trial, Honeywell filed a motion in limine to preclude plaintiff from presenting expert opinion testimony that every exposure to asbestos above background contributed to decedent’s disease. The motion was denied, and plaintiff’s pathologist (James A. Strauchen, M.D.) and pulmonologist (William Rom, M.D.) were permitted to testify and advance the theory. Ultimately, the jury found for plaintiffs, and Honeywell appealed.

Honeywell’s primary basis for appeal was that the “every exposure counts” testimony of Dr. Strauchen should have been excluded. Honeywell advanced four arguments:  (1) the testimony was speculative and illogical; (2) the regulatory standards Strauchen relied upon cannot establish causation; (3) no appropriate scientific literature supports the theory; and (4) the theory is contrary to California causation law espoused in Rutherford v. Owens Illinois (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, which held that not every exposure to asbestos is a “substantial factor” in causing disease.

Davis rejected each of Honeywell’s arguments. “Having reviewed much of the commentary and scientific literature cited in support of and against the ‘every exposure’ theory, we conclude that the theory is the subject of legitimate scientific debate.   Because in ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony the trial court ‘does not resolve scientific controversies (Sargon), it is for the jury to resolve the conflict between the every exposure theory and any competing expert opinions.”  The court focused largely on the mere existence of evidence that supported the “every exposure counts” theory, and declined to weigh the evidence or any competing inferences.   “While Honeywell is generally correct that in many (or even most) instances epidemiological studies provide the best evidence of causation, its implied argument that it is improper for an expert to rely upon any other tools to determine causation, such as case reports, is not universally accepted.”  As to Honeywell’s argument that “every exposure” contravenes Rutherford, Davis  interpreted Rutherford as not requiring a “dose level estimation,” instead issuing a sweeping statement interpreting Rutherford as supporting the conclusion that even a very small “dose” could increase the risk of asbestos-related cancer.  Davis distinguished the many cases from other jurisdictions rejecting this argument, including Betz v. Pneumo Abex, LLC (2012) 615 Pa. 504, Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. (Tex. 2014) 439 S.W.3d 332 and Moeller v. Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC (6th Cir. 2011) 660 F.3d 950. “[W]e simply disagree” that the “every exposure” theory could not be “reconciled with the fact that mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases are dose-dependent.”

The Davis court did state, however, that “[w]e caution that our discussion of the materials Dr. Strauchen relied upon should not be seen as approval of either side in that scientific dispute.  Rather, we rely upon the rule of Sargon that although trial courts ‘have a substantial ‘gatekeeping’ responsibility,’ in evaluating proposed expert opinion . . . the gate tended is not a partisan checkpoint . . . If the opinion is based on materials on which the expert may reasonably rely in forming the opinion, and flows in a reasoned chain of logic from those materials rather than from speculation or conjecture, the opinion may pass, even though the trial court or other experts disagree with its conclusion or the methods and materials used to reach it.  (emphasis added)

Further, although much of the discussion relates to the “any exposure” theory, Davis pointed out that the case did not hinge on that theory.  “In this case, Dr. Strauchen was presented with a hypothetical based on the facts surrounding Davis’ exposure to dust from his work on Bendix brake linings, and testified as to estimates of the amount of asbestos fibers contained in visible dust. Therefore, his conclusion that Davis’ exposure to Bendix brake linings was a substantial factor in contributing to the risk of mesothelioma was not based simply on “any exposure” to asbestos, but instead related to an estimate of actual exposure.”

The decision is not yet final. It is still subject to a petition for rehearing, which could result in a change in the opinion, and to either or both a request for depublication and a petition for review to the California Supreme Court, either of which if granted would make this decision uncitable in California courts, though not necessarily elsewhere.

Since Mesothelioma Uncertain to Occur from Asbestos Exposure, Washington Court of Appeals Affirms Summary Judgment for Plaintiff’s Former Employer

Last year’s decision of the Washington Supreme Court in Walston v. Boeing, 181 Wn.2d 391, 334 P.3d 519 (2014smelting), affirmed the narrow scope of the state’s statutory exception from worker’s compensation pre-emption – a plaintiff must prove an employer’s deliberate intention to cause his injury to avoid pre-emption and file a civil lawsuit for tort damages in excess of worker’s compensation benefits. In Kalahar v. Alcoa, Appeal No. 72635-8-1 (August 24, 2015) (unpublished), the plaintiff tried an end-run around Walston which, if adopted, would have rendered pre-emption illusory and opened employers up to civil liability in myriad circumstances. Instead, the Court of Appeals saw through the attempt to circumvent Walston and reaffirmed that the deliberate injury exception to workers compensation immunity did not apply as a matter of law because – citing the plaintiff’s own medical experts – there was no evidence that the employer knew asbestos exposure was certain to cause compensable injury to the plaintiff.

Plaintiff John Kalahar worked at the defendant’s aluminum smelter plant in Wenatchee, Washington in the 1960s and early 1970s. Mr. Kalahar and his wife sued his former employer in 2014 after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer generally associated with asbestos exposure. Under the Washington Industrial Insurance Act, employees injured in the course and scope of their employment are generally limited to the recovery of workers compensation benefits without proof of fault, while employers receive immunity from civil suits by workers. However, plaintiffs argued here for application of the statute’s narrow exception allowing an employee to sue an employer in tort for a work-related injury which results “from the deliberate intention of his or her employer to produce such injury.” RCW 51.24.020. The trial court granted the defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment based on its lack of actual knowledge that (1) the plaintiff was certain to develop mesothelioma and (2) the company willfully disregarded such knowledge.

Applying the Washington Supreme Court’s recent decision in Walston, the Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment for the former employer. In Walston, the Supreme Court held an employer’s knowledge that asbestos exposure to its employees may cause an asbestos-related disease does not establish a “deliberate” injury because asbestos exposure is not certain to cause mesothelioma and thus the employer cannot have actual knowledge that compensable injury was certain to occur. Walston rejected as insufficient the testimony offered by plaintiff’s expert Dr. Arnold Brody that asbestos exposure would cause changes at the cellular level, because the claimed compensable injury was mesothelioma, not cellular changes. The Supreme Court also relied on testimony by plaintiff’s expert Dr. Andrew Churg admitting that asbestos exposure is not certain to cause mesothelioma or any other disease. The Kalahars used the same experts (Dr. Brody and Dr. Churg) as the plaintiffs had in Walston and could not demonstrate the certainty that Mr. Kalahar would actually develop mesothelioma more than forty years after he left the defendant’s employment.

The Court of Appeals in Kalahar rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to distinguish Walston. The Kalahars attempted to argue that – unlike in the Walston case – Mr. Kalahar had shown immediate symptoms from asbestos exposure demonstrated by coughing, sneezing, and skin irritation. But the Court of Appeals held that Walston reached its holding because asbestos exposure is not certain to cause disease regardless of whether contemporaneous physical symptoms existed:

The Kalahars attempt to distinguish Walston based on their evidence of Kalahar’s contemporaneous physical symptoms claiming that none existed in Walston. But, the Walston court ultimately reached its conclusion by reasoning that asbestos exposure is not certain to cause mesothelioma or any other disease – not because Walston failed to provide evidence of physical injury – contemporaneous or delayed. 181 Wn.2d at 397. (“[Asbestos exposure] does cause a risk of disease, but as we have previously held, that is insufficient to meet the [applicable] standard.”). Like the expert in Walston, the Kalahars’ expert admitted that asbestos exposure, at any level, is never certain to cause mesothelioma or any other disease. We are bound by the Supreme Court’s decision in Walston. Therefore, we conclude that the Kalahars have not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Alcoa had actual knowledge that the injury—mesothelioma – was certain to occur.

The Court of Appeals further rejected the plaintiff’s argument that Walston effectively “removes occupational diseases from the intentional injury exception” by noting that prior Supreme Court precedent have required that an employer knew with certainty that the injury would occur and that “the legislature has not taken issue” with those cases.

Seattle Partners Mark Tuvim and Kevin Craig handled the appeal, with Tuvim arguing the case before the Court of Appeals. The Kalahars have thirty days to file an expected petition for review to the Washington Supreme Court.

Vulnerable no more: disaster preparedness now safer under Oregon law

As part of a larger package of earthquake preparedness measures, a new Oregon statute should be of interest to anyone who stores toxic substances. Oregon Senate Bill 775 provides:

Evidence of measures taken or vulnerability assessments conducted before a natural disaster occurs that were intended to minimize the impact of or plan for the natural disaster is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with damage, harm, injury or death resulting from the natural disaster.

quakeyWhile not limited to the chemical industry, the bill is of particular interest to that industry. In an interview with Oregon public radio, the Chair of the Oregon Seismic Safety Commission explained that the bill was intended to encourage companies that store fuel or toxic chemicals to conduct vulnerability assessments with the assurance that the studies would not be later used against them in court to prove their negligence.

According to Oregon public radio, geologists estimate that there is a 37 percent chance of a large earthquake (8.0 or greater) along the Cascadia Subduction Zone within the next 50 years. So, it may be time to consider an updated vulnerability assessment – with less worry that acting to promote safety could backfire later and be used to establish tort liability.