Bartel v. Tokyo Elec. Power Co.
371 F. Supp. 3d 769
S.D. Cal.2019Background
- March 11, 2011 tsunami and earthquake caused the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear disaster; U.S. Navy personnel (Operation Tomodachi) allege radiation injuries from releases at FNPP.
- Plaintiffs sued TEPCO (operator) and GE (reactor designer) asserting state-law torts (negligence, strict products liability, ultrahazardous activity, wrongful death, etc.).
- Procedural history: earlier Cooper and Bartel I suits challenged similar claims; in Bartel I this Court dismissed claims against TEPCO for lack of personal jurisdiction. Bartel II adds 55 new plaintiffs and reasserts claims.
- TEPCO moved to dismiss on issue-preclusion and personal-jurisdiction grounds; GE moved to dismiss contending Japanese law (Compensation Act) channels liability to the operator and bars GE.
- Court: (1) applies California preclusion law; (2) holds Bartel I precludes the same Bartel I plaintiffs but not the 55 new Bartel II plaintiffs; (3) dismisses claims against TEPCO for lack of personal jurisdiction as to the remaining plaintiffs; (4) conducts choice-of-law and applies Japan’s Compensation Act to bar all claims against GE.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue preclusion from Bartel I | Bartel I dismissal was without prejudice and not final; thus preclusion should not bar claims | TEPCO: Bartel I’s jurisdictional dismissal is a final adjudication for issue preclusion | Bartel I precludes the same named Bartel I plaintiffs from relitigating personal jurisdiction but does not bind 55 new Bartel II plaintiffs (no privity) |
| Privity — do new plaintiffs bind to Bartel I | New plaintiffs were members of prior putative class and thus bound | TEPCO: nonparty class members are not bound absent class certification or adequate representation | No privity: unnamed/uncertified class members not bound; Taylor v. Sturgell framework controls (no adequate representation; no procedures protecting nonparties) |
| Personal jurisdiction over TEPCO (waiver / specific jurisdiction / Rule 4(k)(2)) | Plaintiffs: TEPCO waived objections by prior litigation; California has specific jurisdiction based on prior registration and TEPCO–GE relationship; Rule 4(k)(2) provides nationwide jurisdiction | TEPCO: preserved jurisdictional defense; contacts with California insufficient and claims are state-law so 4(k)(2) inapplicable | No waiver; purposeful availment minimal (short California registration qualifies, but claims do not "arise out of" that contact and TEPCO–GE dealings don’t tie TEPCO to CA); no specific jurisdiction; Rule 4(k)(2) inapplicable because claims arise under state law; dismissal without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction |
| Choice of law re GE liability and applicability of Japan’s Compensation Act | Plaintiffs: defer choice-of-law; California law applies and GE is strictly liable | GE: Japanese Compensation Act channels liability to the operator (TEPCO), precluding GE’s liability | Court applies California governmental-interest test, finds a true conflict, concludes Japan’s interest is more impaired if its law not applied, applies Japanese Compensation Act; GE is not an "Operator" under the Act and the Act (as interpreted) channels liability to TEPCO, so GE is dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (limits nonparty preclusion; lists exceptions including adequate representation)
- Daewoo Elecs. Am. Inc. v. Opta Corp., 875 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2017) (apply state preclusion law when assessing prior federal diversity decisions)
- Semtek Int'l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (2001) (finality and preclusive effect principles in diversity cases)
- Samara v. Matar, 5 Cal. 5th 322 (Cal. 2018) (California issue-preclusion elements)
- DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 61 Cal. 4th 813 (Cal. 2015) (privity and nonparty preclusion under California law)
- Sabek, Inc. v. Engelhard Corp., 65 Cal. App. 4th 992 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (jurisdictional dismissal can have preclusive effect for issue preclusion)
- Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357 (9th Cir. 1990) (plaintiff’s burden for prima facie showing of jurisdiction on written materials)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (minimum contacts and fair play/substantial justice framework)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (contacts must be with the forum state itself, not with forum residents)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941) (federal courts in diversity apply forum state choice-of-law rules)
- McCann v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 48 Cal. 4th 68 (Cal. 2010) (comparative impairment and deference to the forum whose interests are more closely tied to the regulated conduct)