Fend v. Allen-Bradley Company et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

E.D. Pa.June 13, 2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JANE FEND, on behalf of the Estate of BRIAN L. FEND, deceased, and widow in her own right, Plaintiff, v. ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No.: 2:17-cv-01701-ER DEFENDANT LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Lockheed Martin”) respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(i), to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. In support thereof, Lockheed Martin relies upon, and incorporates herein by reference, its Memorandum of Law filed concurrently herewith. Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 13, 2017 GLAZIER YEE LLP /s/ Brian T. Clark Brian T. Clark (pro hac vice pending)(CA Bar #184003) 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1003 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 356-1100 Dated: June 13, 2017 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. /s/ William R. Adams William R. Adams (PA Bar #73534) 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2110 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 925-2289 Attorneys for Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 2 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that on July 13, 2017, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (including supporting documents) was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania using the ECF system which sent notification of such filing to all counsel of record. These documents are now available for viewing and downloading from the ECF system. Dated: July 13, 2017 GLAZIER YEE LLP /s/ Brian T. Clark Brian T. Clark (pro hac vice pending)(CA Bar #184003) 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1003 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 356-1100 Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91 Filed 06/13/17 Page 2 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JANE FEND, on behalf of the Estate of BRIAN L. FEND, deceased, and widow in her own right, Plaintiff, v. ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No.: 2:17-cv-01701-ER DEFENDANT LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Jane Fend (“Plaintiff”) seek to invoke Pennsylvania jurisdiction over Lockheed Martin, a Maryland corporation, despite the absence of any facts demonstrating that Decedent Brian Fend’s alleged asbestos-related injuries arose out of any Pennsylvania-related Lockheed Martin conduct. Plaintiff does not, and cannot in good faith, allege any facts sufficient to establish this Court’s personal jurisdiction over Lockheed Martin consistent with constitutional due process. As such, Lockheed Martin should be dismissed. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court in March of 2017. (Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Complaint”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1, at p.1.) Multiple defendants, including Lockheed Martin, thereafter invoked this Court’s federal officer removal jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1] and Lockheed Martin’s Joinder in Removal [ECF No. 41].) Plaintiff alleges, in part, that Decedent was exposed to asbestos while serving in the United States Navy when he “assisted in maintenance and repair” of multiple military aircraft. (Complaint, at ¶¶ 6(h) and 10(q).) Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-1 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 6 2 Plaintiff does not allege any specific facts demonstrating that Decedent encountered, let alone was exposed to asbestos from, any Lockheed Martin product in Pennsylvania. (Id.) Indeed, Plaintiff does not allege any jurisdictional facts whatsoever as to Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin is incorporated under Maryland law and headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. (Declaration of Dana L. Bennett [“Bennett Decl.”], attached hereto as Exhibit 2, at ¶¶ 2-3.) Lockheed Martin has derived less than 4% of its revenue from Pennsylvania activity and maintained less than 5% of its employees in Pennsylvania over the same time period. (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 6.) III. ARGUMENT A. Plaintiff Bears The Burden Of Demonstrating Facts Sufficient To Assert Personal Jurisdiction Consistent With Constitutional Requirements When a defendant files a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, “a plaintiff bears the burden of proving by affidavits or other competent evidence that jurisdiction is proper.” Dayhoff Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 86 F.3d 1287, 1302 (3d Cir. 1996). While the plaintiff need establish only a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction, “once the defendant raises the question of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.” Carteret Sav. Bank, F.A. v. Shushan, 954 F.2d 141, 146 (3d Cir. 1992). B. This Court Cannot Constitutionally Assert Personal Jurisdiction Over Lockheed Martin A federal district court generally applies the law of the state in which it sits for purposes of assessing personal jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute authorizes Pennsylvania courts to exercise personal jurisdiction to the extent “allowed under the Constitution of the United States.” 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(b); see also 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5308 (“The tribunals of this Commonwealth may exercise jurisdiction . . . only where the contact with this Commonwealth is sufficient under the Constitution of the United States.”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, a district court sitting in Pennsylvania must inquire whether the defendant has “certain minimum contacts with [Pennsylvania] such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” International Shoe Co. v. Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-1 Filed 06/13/17 Page 2 of 6 3 Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Non-resident defendants, such as Lockheed Martin, have a liberty interest under the United States Constitution in not being subjected to the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania courts if their Pennsylvania contacts fall below the “minimum contacts” threshold enunciated by the United States Supreme Court. These basic due process principles are reflected in two distinct types of personal jurisdiction: (1) specific jurisdiction; and (2) general jurisdiction. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 751 (2014). “Specific jurisdiction is case-specific; the [plaintiff’s] claim must be linked to the [defendant’s] activities or contacts with the forum.” Id. General jurisdiction, by contrast, “is all-purpose; it exists only when the [defendant’s] affiliations with the State are so continuous and systemic as to render them essentially at home in the forum state.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis added). As set forth below, Plaintiff cannot establish either specific or general jurisdiction over Lockheed Martin. 1. This Court Cannot Maintain Specific Personal Jurisdiction Over Lockheed Martin Plaintiff cannot establish specific jurisdiction over Lockheed Martin because her allegations against Lockheed Martin bear no relation to Pennsylvania. Specific jurisdiction exists only if the injury at-issue “arises out of or relates to” the defendant’s forum-related activities. Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984); Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 761. Further, the “unilateral activities of another party or a third person is not an appropriate consideration when determining whether a defendant has sufficient contacts with a forum State to justify an assertion of jurisdiction.” Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 417; see also Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1123 (2014). Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not state, refer to, or otherwise identify any injury that “arises out of or relates to” any Pennsylvania-specific conduct of Lockheed Martin. On this basis alone, Plaintiff cannot assert specific personal jurisdiction over Lockheed Martin. 2. This Court Lacks General Personal Jurisdiction Over Lockheed Martin To establish general jurisdiction, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s contacts with the forum are “so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.” Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 754; see also BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, No. 16-405, 2017 WL Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-1 Filed 06/13/17 Page 3 of 6 4 2322834, at *9-10 (U.S. May 30, 2017). This is an exceedingly high hurdle. In the absence of an “exceptional case,” a corporation is “at home” only in its state of incorporation or where it maintains its principal place of business. Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 760-61 n.19; BNSF, 2017 WL 2322834, at *9. In Daimler, two Argentinians filed suit in California federal court against Daimler AG, a German corporation, alleging claims under the Alien Tort Statute and Torture Victims Protection Act. Id. at 751. The plaintiffs argued that general jurisdiction over Daimler could be based on the “continuous and systematic” California contacts of Daimler’s subsidiary, Mercedes-Benz USA (“MBUSA”). Id. at 760-61. The Supreme Court assumed (without deciding) that MBUSA was “at home” in California and that the following MBUSA California contacts were imputed to Daimler: 1) “MBUSA’s California sales account[ed] for 2.4% of Daimler’s worldwide sales,” with annual sales revenue totaling $4.6 billion; 2) MBUSA had “multiple California-based facilities, including a regional office in Costa Mesa, a Vehicle Preparation Center in Carson, and a Classic Center in Irvine;” 3) MBUSA was “the largest supplier of luxury vehicles to the California market,” which accounted for over “10% of all sales of new vehicles in the United States;” and 4) MBUSA was the exclusive importer of Mercedes-Benz vehicles into the United States. Id. at 752, 758, 760. Finding these imputed California contacts insufficient to justify general jurisdiction over Daimler, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011), that “the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction” is a corporation’s “place of incorporation and principal place of business . . . .” Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 760. Rejecting the notion that a corporate defendant can be subject to general jurisdiction “in every State in which [it] engages in a substantial, continuous, and systematic course of business,” the Court clarified Goodyear, explaining that: the inquiry under Goodyear is not whether a foreign corporation’s in-forum contacts can be said to be in some sense continuous and systematic, it is whether the corporation’s affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home in the forum State. Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-1 Filed 06/13/17 Page 4 of 6 5 Id. at 761 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court further explained that “a corporation that operates in many places can scarcely be deemed at home in all of them. Otherwise, ‘at home’ would be synonymous with ‘doing business’ tests framed before specific jurisdiction evolved in the United States.” Id. at 762 n.20. “[T]he exercise of general jurisdiction in every State in which a corporation engages in a substantial, continuous, and systematic course of business” would be “unacceptably grasping.” Id. at 761 (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis added).1 Simply put, “those who live or operate primarily outside a State have a due process right not to be subjected to judgment in its courts as a general matter.” J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd., v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 881 (2011) (emphasis added). Since the Supreme Court issued Daimler, the Third Circuit has recognized the stringent standard for asserting all-purpose jurisdiction, noting that “it is incredibly difficult to establish general jurisdiction over a corporation in a forum other than the place of incorporation or principal place of business.” Chavez v. Dole Food Company, Inc., 836 F.3d 205, 223 (3d Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original) (holding that a defendant is not “at home” in Delaware when Delaware is not the defendant’s place of incorporation or principal place of business). Here too, Lockheed Martin neither is incorporated in Pennsylvania nor has its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. (Bennett Decl., at ¶¶ 2-3.) Rather, Lockheed Martin’s corporate home is Maryland, the jurisdiction in which it is both incorporated and headquartered. (Id.) Indeed, Lockheed Martin derives only a tiny fraction of its total revenue (between approximately 1.7% and 3.1%) from Pennsylvania activity. (Bennett Decl., at ¶ 5.) In Daimler, the defendant’s California revenue totaling 2.4% of its annual worldwide sales “plainly [did] not 1 As an example of the “exceptional” case in which a defendant could be subject to general jurisdiction other than in its “formal place of incorporation or principal place of business,” the Supreme Court cited the only case in which it ever has upheld the exercise of general jurisdiction: Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952). Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 755-56, 761 n.19. In Perkins, as explained in Daimler, the defendant corporation temporarily relocated from its Philippine headquarters to Ohio during World War II. Id. at 756. “Ohio was the corporation’s principal, if temporary, place of business.” Id. “Given the wartime circumstances [in Perkins], Ohio could be considered a surrogate for the place of incorporation or head office.” Id. at 756 n.8 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis added). Thus, when a defendant’s formal place of incorporation or principal place of business is not (or no longer remains) the actual place of incorporation or principal place of business, courts may substitute an informal, “surrogate” corporate home. See id. at 756. The unique circumstances of Perkins are wholly absent here. Maryland remains Lockheed Martin’s corporate home. Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-1 Filed 06/13/17 Page 5 of 6 6 approach [the] level” for imposing general jurisdiction. Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 761 n.19. Lockheed Martin’s fraction of Pennsylvania-related revenue is comparable to, or less than, the proportionate revenue deemed “plainly” insufficient to warrant general jurisdiction in Daimler. Likewise, the proportion of Lockheed Martin employees based in Pennsylvania ranged between approximately 2.5% and 4.9% of the total number of Lockheed Martin employees in each year between 2012 and 2016, inclusive. (Bennett Decl., at ¶ 6.) Accordingly, just as there is no basis for specific jurisdiction over Lockheed Martin, there is no constitutional basis for subjecting Lockheed Martin to general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. Plaintiff does not, and cannot in good faith, allege otherwise. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Lockheed Martin respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 13, 2017 GLAZIER YEE LLP /s/ Brian T. Clark Brian T. Clark (pro hac vice pending)(CA Bar #184003) 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1003 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 356-1100 Dated: June 13, 2017 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. /s/ William R. Adams William R. Adams (PA Bar #73534) 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2110 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 925-2289 Attorneys for Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-1 Filed 06/13/17 Page 6 of 6 Exhibit 1 Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 11 CJ w t; < CJ w a. PAUL, REICH & MYERS P.C., P.e. Firm No. 99991 By: Robert E. Paul, Esquln: Identification No. 2l2.S2 Anorney for Plaintiff 1608 Walnut Slreet, Suite SOD Philadelphia, PA 19103 (2\ 5)135-9200 .. _. -_. ~ ." ' ~, c, . ,:i.':'l i : !.(I :,l tl :· ,\ ; - r~ ." I : ; . " I" .. : ' , \ • 11 . ~ . , ': ~ . f ~i~ I.' " . I . - ~ ': '" ~ _~~=-. __ . ______ ........ _. _ "'_~-=-~~ ,,"-",-'~.<.-:..aJ; JANE FEND. Executrix of the Estate of BRIAN L. FEND, deceased, and widow in her own right 342 Sunbury Road Slippery Rock. PA 16057 vs. ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY O. et aI. Corpomtion Systems 8020 Excelsior Drive Suite 200 MADISON, WI USA 53717 : MARCH TERM, 2017 : NO. .' . ' . • r I ' j " r \ ' , " I • - I . , • '" ~ 1 .~ • 'i. ' I) Plaintiff, Jane Fend, brings this action on behalf of the Estate of BRIAN L. FEND. resides SLIPPERY ROCK, Pennsylvania, and is a citizen of the Commonwealth ofPeDllsylvania. She is the widow of deceased and brings the action on behalf of the Estate. She expects to be appointed personal representative by the Register of Wills of Butler County Pennsylvania shortly. The decedent who was exposed to asbestos was BRIAN L. FEND, who died on 01131115. Case ID: ) 70301856 Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 2 of 11 D W t; < D W a. 2) PlaintiB's deceased, BRIAN L. FEND, was born , 1961, and his Social Security Number was 3) Plaintifi's deceased, BRIAN L. FEND's only dependents were his wife Jane M. Fend and his child Brianna I. 1997. 4) Plaintiff's deceased, BRIAN L. FEND, smoked approximately I pack(s) of cigarettes per day from 1979 until 2014. 5) Plaintiff's Social Security and IRS records will be furnished upon receipt. 6) Plaintiffs work history is as follows: a) From 01101104 to 01131115 • General Electric (Grove City, PA) as an assemblerltest operator b) From 03/01102 to 12131/03 -MineSafetyAppliances(EvanCity,PA) as a molder c) From 09/12101 to 02128102 - Self-Employed as D house builder. d) From 10101/99 to 09/11101 - Altman Truck·inll (Fenelton, PA) as a truck driver e) From 04/01199 to 10/01199 - Resolite (Harmony, PA) as a laborer f) From 04/01197 to 03131199 - Boeing (Wichita, Kansas) as an inspector g) From 07101196 to 03131197 - Resolite (Harmony. PA) as a laborer h) From 06/0118 I to 06130/96 • U.S. Navy - This included years working on the USS JFK as an aviation structural mechanic starting in 1981. In this position he assisted in maintenance and repair of the ship ilselfand of the ailJllanes of Lockheed and Grumman and Boeing or its predecessors engines of Prall, GE and Westinghouse and helicopters of Be/I. i) From 06/0In9 to 06/01/81 • R.C. Ernst (Butler, PA) as a laborer (pipelines) j) From 01/0ln7 to 05131n9 • Burr's (Evan City 0 as a mechanic/attendant Case ID: J 7030 J 856 Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 3 of 11 7) Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos at all sites set forth supra. 8) Plaintiff incorporates by reference against defendants all the allegations of all the Complaints fLIed in !liM Nealy,. Elte¢litrUt of the Esto!e ofHany Platt v. Abex Corporation, et aI., Philadelphia C.P. May Term, 1985, No. 2678, Rafiiellilid Cecilia" Montero V., A~ CorporatjOn, et aI., Philadelphia C.P. July Tenn, 1986, No. 1216, and RieWd and SlIWW' ,tlalbirerv •. Abex.Comoration, et aI., Philadelphia C.P. July Tenn, 1986, No, 649, and Anna Tedesuhl. Administratrix gfthe Estate of COsmo Tedeschi-!, AbDll Corporation. et ai " Philadelphia C.P. JanuBIy Term, 1986, No. 1641, and in the Master Plaintiffs' Complaint filed and prepared pursuant to the Order establishing the Master Pleadings Procedure in the Court of Common Pleas as if fully set oUllJerein. The jurisdiction in the Court is maritime jurisdiction under 46 USC 30106. 9) All allegations against defendants named in this lawsuit which were made in the Complaints filed in the lawsuits annotated in Paragraph 8 above or in the Master Complaint are incorporated by reference except where amended by this complaint 10) The defendants are those companies listed in the caption. The principal places of business and the states of incorporation of each of the defendants are set out in the above-referenced filed master complaint or herein. a) Defendant, AUen-Bradley Company, is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal place of business at 1201 S. Second Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53204. Allen-Bradley is the successor in interest to the Rostone Corporation or sole shareholder of its creature and alter ego Rostone Corporation. It is reSponsible for all injuries caused by RostoDe or by the Rostone Division of Allen-Bradley or its predecessors, The various Rostone entities sold Rosite and other asbestos containing products to Case lD: 170301856 Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 4 of 11 Westinghouse Electric and odler entities. These asbestos products caused the injuries complained of herein. b) At all times material defendDllt Aurora Pump or its predecssors in interest sold equipment or valves or both insulated with asbestos or designed to be insulated with asbestos. c) At all times Bell designed its helicopters to contain asbestos. Exposure to asbestos on the helicopters caused the injuries herein. d) Defendant, BF Goodrich Company. is a New York corporation with its principal place of business located at 3925 Embassy Parkway, Akron, Ohio. At all times material it sold cement, gaskets and brake linings to which the injured person was exposed. e) At all times Buffalo sold pumps and/or valves insulated with asbestos or designed to be insulated with asbestos. As a result of exposure to asbestos on Buffalo pumps the injured parly suffered the injuries complained of herein. f) Defendant, Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business located in Lebanon, Pennsylvania. At all times material hereto Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. sold boilers which were designed or intended to be insulated with asbestos. Because the boilers failed to contain adequate and sufficient warnings of the pos$ible ha7.ards of asbestos, they were defective and the conduct of defendant in selling that those products without such warnings was negligent. Since asbestos insulation on the boilers had to be removed, it Willi dangerous and warnings should have been given. g) Crane Company is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Connecticut. It is the successor in interest to its former parent, Crane Company, an Illinois corporation, and liable for injuries due to exposure to the fonner Illinois Crane's Case ID: 170301856 Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 5 of 11 asbestos products. At all times materiailo Ihis aclion, Crane's predecessor sold Cranite sheet packing, packing for valves, braided asbestos, wick and rope packing, asbestocel, 85% magnesia, wool felt and other asbeslos pipe insulation. Exposure to the asbestos dust from these products caused the injuries complained ofberein. h) Defendant, Crouse-Hinds, is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business located in Houston, Texas. Crouse-Hinds is a mere creature and alter ego or a predecessor in interest to Cooper Industries which is liable for any and aU damages for injuries suffered from exposure to Crouse-Hinds products. Plaintiff/decedent used, handled or was exposed to Chico X asbestos fiber which was distributed or sold by Crouse-Hinds. i) Dcfendant, Dana Corporation, is a corporation duly organized and existing in the Commonwealth of Virginia and is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia with a principal place ofbusincss at 4500 Dorr Street, P.O. Box 1000 Toledo, Ohio. Dana sold asbestos containing gaskets, packing and clutches .cor airplanes. j) Defendant, Eaton Corporation, is DO Ohio corporatioo with its principal place of business located at 11 )) Superior Avenue, S.E., Cleveland, Ohio. Eatoo Corporation is the successor in interest to Cutler-Hammer Inc which sold asbestos cootaining brakes for airplanes and other osbestos products such as firesleeves thai ca\lsed the injuries herein. k) Defendant, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky with its principal place of business in Kentucky and is doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. At all times malerial hereto, defendant, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., manufoctured, produced and Case ID: 170301856 Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 6 of 11 sold asbestos products either directly or indirectly. in the geographical area in which plaintiffs worked andlor to the employers of the plaintiffs, including. but not limited to. asbestos brake linings. I) At all times, Gould Pumps sold asbestos products which caused the injuries complained of herein. m) All at times Goodyear Aerospace sold asbestos-containing products which caused the iqjuries complained of herein. n) Defendant, HONEYWELL Incorporated at all times material sold andlor installed. ·and thermocouples and valves containing asbestos. As a result orthe asbestos being released dUring installation, operation or repair of the products at issue herein. the asbestos was inhaled by the injured person causing the ilijuries complained of herein. 0) At all times material HWltington's predecessors Northrup Grumman Shipbuilding and Newport News Shipbuilding designed the tlss John F. Kennedy to contain asbestos. Exposure to asbestos on the ship caused the injuries herein. p) Alall times material Ingersoll Rand sold products insulated with asbestos. Exposure to asbestos on the Ingersoll Rand products caused the injuries at issue. q) Lockheed designed its P-3 Orion airplanes to contain asbestos. Exposure to this asbestos caused the injuries complaiued oCherein. r) At all times material defendant Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing sold asbestos products which caused the iqiuries complained of herein including arc proofing tape and also sold defective respirators Which did not prevent the injuries herein. It is also ~ued as a supplier of asbestos-containing body filler and other products for automobiles and airplanes. Case ID: 170301856 Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 7 of 11 s) At all times material MSA sold respirators and gloves. Despite bcliefthese were safe they allowed plaintiff to breathe asbestos causing the injuries herein. t) At all times material Pratt and Whitney sold aircraft engines and steam powcr equipment designed and/or intended to contain asbestos clamps and asbestos gaskets and other asbestos products. Exposure to asbestos on this equipment caused the injuries complained of herein. u) Northrup Grumman designed its airplanes, particularly the FI4 Tomcat and its ships such as the John F. Kennedy to contain asbestos. Exposure to the asbestos caused the injuries herein. v) At all limes malerial RoUs Royce or its predecessor Allison sold asbestos- containing engines used on Lockbeed Orion P-3 airplanes containing asbestos. E"llosure to the asbeslos on the Allison Rolls Royce engines caused the injuries herein. w) At all times maleriallo this action Boeing and/or its predecessors Douglas and McDonnell Douglas is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place ofbusiness in Illinois. At all times material to this action defendant North American sold airplanes designed to contain asbestos. Exposure 10 ashestos on the planes caused the injuries herein. x) Honeywell International is sued for selling asbestos containing brake linings and other equipment for airplanes. y) Defendant GE is also sued for engines on the FI4 Tomcat and other airplanes. z) Defendant Westinghouse is sued faT engines and other equipment for airplanes. 11) During the course of his employment at the worksites nOled in Paragraph 6 supra, plaintiffbelicves and t1lerefore avcrs that the decedent was exposed to asbestos fiber aT Case ID: 170301856 Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 8 of 11 asbestos products manufactured, sold, distributed, or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce by the defendants. The term asbestos products as used herein includes asbeslos- containing products such as boilers and engines nnd furnaces and turbines engines BOd airplanes. The term asbestos-containing as used herein means products sold with asbestos or products whose designers, manufactun:rs and fabricators knew, should or could have known that it would be insulated or could be insulated with asbestos. 12) Plaintiff does not now know whether or not the decedent was exposed to asbestos products at worksites other than those enumerated in Paragraph 6 above, but he reserves his right 10 assen at triallbat he was so exposed at the other sites, should such evideace develop. Plaintiff avers thaI should sucb evidence develop, he wiJI promptly notify defendants well in advance of trial. JJ} Decedent died ofluog cancer due to asbestos on January 31,2015 and such diagnosis was accompanied by discernible or ascertainable physical symploms andlor fimclioDal impairment andlor other detrimental effects as a result of the expo5\lJ'e to asbestos. Plaintiff has developed symptoms due 10 his asbestos inhalations and injuries. 14} Plaintiff pleads forall of the items of damages set forth in the Complaints filed in the eases of Raf(iel Monftni, supra, jtiCbVdBalblmr. supra and in the Master Complaint for all asbestos cases in the Court of Common PI ... which Complaints ..... referenced in Paragraph 8 of Ibis Comptaint. In particular she pleads under maritime law. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands of defendants a sum in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars (S50,OOO.00), exclusive of interest and costs for compensatory damages, and a sum in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars (SSO,OOO.OO) in punitive damages. Case ID: 170301856 Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 9 of 11 PAUL, REICH & MYERS P.C., P.C. BY: rtoWl.!U ROBERT E. PAUL Case ID: 170301856 Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 10 of 11 VERlFlCAIION J, ROBERT E. PAUL, attomey for plaintiff in the foregoing pleading, state that the facts set forth are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, infonnation and belief; and that this statement is made subjectto the penalties ofl8 Pa.C.S. §4904, which relates to unsworn falsification to authorities and that he takes this verification because none of his clients verifications can be obtained within the time allowed for filing the within complaint. ROBBR E. PAUL, ES'\t' u,,,.., Attomey for Plaintiff Case ID: 170301856 Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 11 of 11 Exhibit 2 Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-3 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JANE FEND, on behalf of the Estate of Civil Action No.: 2:17-cv-01701-ER BRIAN L FEND, deceased, and widow in her own right, Plaintiff, v. ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY, et aI., Defendants. DECLARATION OF DANA L. BENNETT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION I, Dana L Bennell, declare as follows: 1. I am an Assistant Corporate Secretary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration. I collected the data contained in this declaration from infonnation contained in Lockheed Martin intcrnal and publicly filed records. Lockheed Marlin personnel, knowledgeable about the subject matter of this infonnalion, recorded this infonnation at or near thc time of the events recorded. Lockheed Martin personnel rely upon the infonnntion recorded and the documents recording the infonnalion in the regular course of carrying out their duties. I could and would competently testify to the facts herein if called upon to do so. 2. Lockheed Martin is incorporated and headquartered in the State of Maryland. 3. All of Lockheed Martin's activities nre directed by and controlled from its headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland. 4. In addition to its headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland, Lockheed Martin is composed of four business areas, headquartered and led by one of its Executive Vice Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-3 Filed 06/13/17 Page 2 of 3 Presidents as follows: Rotary and Mission Systems in Manassas, Virginia; Aeronautics in Fort Worth, Texas; Missiles and Fire Control in Dallas, Texas; and Space Systems in Denver, Colorado. 5. For the period between 2011 and 2015, which is the most current five-year period for which state-specific revenue data are available, the proportion of Lockheed Martin's revenue derived from work performed in Pennsylvania ranged between approximately 1.7% and 3.1% of Lockheed Martin's total revenue in each year of the five-year period. Lockheed Martin has conducted no activity in 2016 or 2017 that would have resulted in Pennsylvania revenue numbers outside of this approximate range. 6. For the period between 2012 and 2016, which is the most current five- year period for which state-specific employee data are available, the proportion of Lockheed Martin employees based in Pennsylvania ranged between approximately 25% and 4.9% of the total number of Lockheed Martin employees in each year of the five-year period. Lockheed Martin has conducted no activity in 2017 that would result in Pennsylvania employee numbers outside of this approximate range. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that [ executed this declaration on May .1.1-, 2017, at Bethesda, Maryland. j "Dana L. Bennett 2 Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-3 Filed 06/13/17 Page 3 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JANE FEND, on behalf of the Estate of BRIAN L. FEND, deceased, and widow in her own right, Plaintiff, v. ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No.: 2:17-cv-01701-ER ORDER Upon consideration of Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, including all documents filed in support of said Motion and in response thereto, it is hereby ordered that said Motion is GRANTED. Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation is DISMISSED. Dated: BY THE COURT: _________________________________ J. . Case 2:17-cv-01701-ER Document 91-4 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 1