Perez et al v. Air & Liquid System Corporation et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

S.D. Ill.January 6, 2017

3:16-cv-00842-NJR-DGW Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SYLVIA PEREZ, Individually and as ) Special Administrator of the Estate of ) ARMANDO PEREZ, Deceased, ) ) Cause No.: 3:16-cv-00842-NJR-DGW Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS ) CORPORATION, Individually and as ) Successor to BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., et ) al. ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT CARRIER CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION COMES NOW Defendant, Carrier Corporation, by and through the undersigned counsel, Tucker Ellis LLP, and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Sections 5/2-209 and 5/2-301 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, submits this Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, stating as follows: 1. Plaintiff Sylvia Perez, Special Administrator of the Estate of Decedent Armando Perez, brought this wrongful death lawsuit alleging that decedent developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos from products and equipment attributable to numerous defendants, including Carrier Corporation. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 5 – 6.) 2. Plaintiff alleges that decedent was exposed to and inhaled asbestos fibers from unspecified products and equipment as follows: 5. The Decedent honorably served his country in the U.S. Navy as a Seaman, Seaman Second Class, Fireman Second Class, Fireman First Class, and Machinist Mate Third Class from approximately 1944 to 1946. He trained in San Diego, California. He was stationed in Honolulu, Hawaii and primarily served aboard the USS Maryland (BB 46). He also worked at various ports when the [USS] Case 3:16-cv-00842-NJR-DGW Document 89 Filed 01/06/17 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #2300 3:16-cv-00842-NJR-DGW Page 2 of 5 Maryland was being repaired. (Id. at 5.) 3. Plaintiff does not make any allegations that decedent worked with or around any products or equipment attributable to Carrier Corporation in Illinois. (See generally, Doc. 1-1.) 4. Carrier Corporation is organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business located in Connecticut. 5. Plaintiff is unable to prove a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction over Carrier Corporation, because Plaintiff’s claims do not arise out of any alleged contacts with Illinois, and because Carrier Corporation is neither incorporated in nor maintains a principal place of business in Illinois. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed for failure to establish personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Sections 5/2-209 and 5/2-301 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Once a defendant moves to dismiss based on the lack of personal jurisdiction, the burden falls on the plaintiff to demonstrate that jurisdiction exists. Purdue Research Found v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773, 782 (7th Cir. 2003). The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction to survive dismissal when the court determines personal jurisdiction based on written submissions and without holding an evidentiary hearing. Kipp v. Ski Enter. Corp. of Wis., 783 F.3d 695, 697 (7th Cir. 2015). 7. The exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant must comport with the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1 Personal jurisdiction is proper 1 The exercise of personal jurisdiction must also comply with the Illinois long-arm statute and State Constitution. See Handson v. Ahmed, 283 Ill. App. 3d 941, 943 (1st Dist. 2008). The long-arm statute permits jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the full extent permissible under the federal and state constitutions. Kostal v. Pinkus Dermatopathology Labs, P.C., 357 Ill. App. 3d 381, 287 (1st Dist. 2005); Hyatt Int’l Corp. v. Coco, 302 F.3d 707, 715 (7th Cir. 2002) (suggesting that there is no operative difference between Illinois and federal due process limits on personal jurisdiction). Moreover, it is generally true that, “when federal due process concerns regarding personal Case 3:16-cv-00842-NJR-DGW Document 89 Filed 01/06/17 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #2301 3:16-cv-00842-NJR-DGW Page 3 of 5 if the nonresident defendant has “certain minimum contacts with [the forum State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend [the] ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). The concept of “minimum contacts” and “fair play and substantial justice” presaged the development of two categories of personal jurisdiction: specific jurisdiction and general jurisdiction. Kipp, 783 F.3d at 697; Keller v. Henderson, 359 Ill. App. 3d 605, 613 (Ill. 2005). 8. A trial court has specific jurisdiction, or case-linked jurisdiction, over a nonresident defendant only when the lawsuit “arises out of or relates to” the defendant’s purposeful contacts with the forum state. Int’l Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 319; Keller, 359 Ill. App. at 613. Specific jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of “issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011). There must be a relationship among the defendant, the forum state and the subject matter of the litigation. Walden v. Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1121 (2014). 9. Here, Plaintiff’s claims against Carrier Corporation do not “arise out of or relate to” any alleged contacts with Illinois. (See generally, Doc. 1-1.) Plaintiff does not allege that decedent worked with or around any products or equipment attributable to Carrier Corporation in Illinois. (Id.) In fact, there are no allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint that Carrier Corporation committed any act in Illinois in general or in connection with Plaintiff’s claims. (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff is unable to establish a prima facie case for specific personal jurisdiction over Carrier Corporation, because the lawsuit does not “arise out of or relate to” the company’s purposeful contacts with Illinois. jurisdiction are satisfied, so are Illinois due process concerns.” Aason, LLC v. Delaney, 356 Ill. Dec. 550, 557 (2nd Dist. 2011). Case 3:16-cv-00842-NJR-DGW Document 89 Filed 01/06/17 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #2302 3:16-cv-00842-NJR-DGW Page 4 of 5 10. A court has general jurisdiction, or all-purpose jurisdiction, to hear any and all claims against a nonresident defendant when the defendant’s “affiliations with the [forum] State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially ‘at home’ in the forum State.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operators, 131 S.Ct. at 2851 (citing and quoting Int’l Shoe, 236 U.S. 317). The Supreme Court has identified only two places where a corporation is “at home:” the place of incorporation and principal place of business. 2 See Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746, 760 (2004) (citing Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, 131 S.Ct. at 2853 – 54). 11. Here, Illinois is not an “all-purpose forum” for claims against Carrier Corporation, because it is not “at home” in the forum. Similar to the nonresident defendant in Daimler, Carrier Corporation is not organized under the laws of Illinois and does not maintain a principal place of business in Illinois. Rather, Carrier Corporation is organized under the laws of Delaware with a principal place of business located in Connecticut. 3 Accordingly, this Defendant is not “at home” in Illinois such that this Court may adjudicate claims against the company lacking any connection with the forum, like Plaintiff’s claims here. This Court, therefore, does not have general personal jurisdiction over Carrier Corporation. 12. As provided above, Plaintiff is unable to prove a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction over Carrier Corporation, because Plaintiff’s claims do not arise out of any alleged contacts with Illinois, and because Carrier Corporation is neither incorporated in nor maintains a principal place of business in Illinois. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed for 2 Citing Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952), the Court in Daimler acknowledged the possibility that, “in an exceptional case . . . a corporation’s operations in a forum other than its formal place of incorporation or principal place of business may be so substantial and of such nature as to render the corporation ‘at home’ in the state.” Daimler, 134 S.Ct. at 752. Perkins was indeed an exception case, where a Philippine mining company temporarily transferred its corporation headquarters to Ohio, and the Court ultimately held that the company was subject to general jurisdiction in Ohio, because “Ohio was the corporation’s principal, if temporary, place of business.” Id. At 756. Short of a de facto transfer of a company’s principal place of business to the forum, Daimler limits the exercise of personal jurisdiction to its “paradigm bases:” state of incorporation and principal place of business. See id. at 761 n. 19. 3 Case 3:16-cv-00842-NJR-DGW Document 89 Filed 01/06/17 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #2303 3:16-cv-00842-NJR-DGW Page 5 of 5 failure to establish personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Sections 5/2-209 and 5/2-301 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Carrier Corporation, respectfully requests that this Court grant its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and any further and additional relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. TUCKER ELLIS LLP By: /s/ Scott R. Hunsaker CHRISTOPHER T. GARDINO #6296552 SCOTT R. HUNSAKER #6309287 100 South 4 th Street, Suite 600 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 Phone: (314) 256-2550 Fax: (314) 256-2549 Email: scott.hunsaker@tuckerellis.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that on January 6, 2016, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing pleading was served on counsel of record through the Court’s CM/ECF system. /s/ Scott R. Hunsaker Case 3:16-cv-00842-NJR-DGW Document 89 Filed 01/06/17 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #2304