Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 22, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00793
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 CHARLOTTE WINELAND, et al., 8 NO. C19-0793RSL Plaintiffs, 9 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 10 ALFA LAVAL’S MOTION TO AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS DISMISS FOR LACK OF 11 CORPORATION, et al., PERSONAL JURISDICTION 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant Alfa Laval Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss 16 for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.” Dkt. # 76.1 Plaintiffs have the burden of demonstrating that 17 the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over each defendant named in this action. In re W. 18 States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 741 (9th Cir. 2013). Plaintiffs have 19 sued twenty-six defendants based on the same generic, conclusory allegations regarding their 20 21 contacts with the State of Washington. See, e.g., Dkt. # 53 at ¶ 2.1 (“Plaintiffs’ claims in this 22 case arise out of or relate to Defendants’ contacts with Washington that arose or existed at the 23 time of Mr. Wineland’s asbestos exposure.”). Alfa Laval challenges the adequacy of these 24 25 26 1 This matter can be decided on the papers submitted. The parties’ requests for oral argument are therefore DENIED. 27 ORDER DENYING ALFA LAVAL’S 1 allegations, asserting that they are insufficient to raise a plausible inference that Alfa Laval has 2 sufficient contacts with the forum state to justify this Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction. 3 Alfa Laval argues that “[a]bsent admissible evidence that Mr. Wineland’s exposure to asbestos 4 arises out of activity that Alfa Laval purposefully directed [activities] at the State of Washington, 5 Plaintiffs’ Complaint against Alfa Laval must be dismissed.” Dkt. # 76 at 7.2 6 7 In response, plaintiffs have come forward with evidence of the following: 8 ! Alfa Laval is responsible for DeLaval and Sharples purifiers, both of which contain 9 asbestos; 10 ! a DeLaval purifier was shipped by Alfa Laval to the J.M. Martinac Shipbuilding 11 Company in Tacoma, Washington, for installation on the USS Pledge, a ship on which the 12 deceased served; 13 14 ! Alfa Laval provided replacement parts, including asbestos-containing gaskets, for 15 purifiers installed on Navy ships; 16 ! major repairs to Alfa Laval’s purifiers had to be performed at a shipyard, at which point 17 18 19 2 The Ninth Circuit has established a three-prong test to determine whether the Court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Dole Food Co., Inc. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th 20 Cir. 2002). Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing the first two prongs, namely that (1) [t]he non- resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the 21 forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privileges 22 of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws [and] (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities . . . .” 23 Morrill v. Scott Fin. Corp., 873 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2017). “Where, as here, the defendant’s motion is based on written materials rather than an evidentiary hearing, ‘the plaintiff need only make a 24 prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss.’” CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & 25 Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2010)). 26 27 ORDER DENYING ALFA LAVAL’S 1 Alfa Laval would send its employees out - including to shipyards in Washington - to repair the 2 purifiers. 3 Dkt. # 46 at 3-4. The Court finds that plaintiffs’ allegations, supplemented by evidence that Alfa 4 Laval shipped asbestos-containing products to Washington for installation on a ship on which 5 the deceased worked, is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction at this 6 7 stage of the litigation.3 8 9 For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant Alfa Laval’s motion to dismiss for lack of 10 personal jurisdiction (Dkt. # 76) is DENIED. 11 12 Dated this 22nd day of January, 2020. 13 A 14 Robert S. Lasnik 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 Alfa Laval has offered no evidence regarding its activities during the relevant time frame. This 26 decision is without prejudice to its ability to prove that it did not, in fact, supply asbestos-containing materials to which plaintiff was exposed. 27 ORDER DENYING ALFA LAVAL’S