Bartel v. Various
965 F. Supp. 2d 612
E.D. Pa.2013Background
- 565 MDL 875 MARDOC motions to dismiss were filed across numerous cases consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- Court previously found no personal jurisdiction for defendants with Ohio connections and outlined multiple prior orders from Judge Lambros regarding transfer and forum Proceedings.
- MDL transferee court treated Ohio long-arm analysis as controlling, holding Ohio lacks general jurisdiction over nonresidents and requires specific jurisdiction under enumerated bases.
- Court held there is no proper personal jurisdiction over many defendants under Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.382 because injuries did not arise from enumerated forum contacts.
- Court also addressed service of process, concluding signed green cards evidencing receipt can satisfy Ohio Rule 4.3(B)(1) if supported by proof of notice, and denied improper service motions.
- Lexecon and related MDL transfer rules prevented the MDL court from transferring cases to other districts; remand to transferor court was mandated after pretrial proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio law grants personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants | Plaintiffs contend jurisdiction exists via long‑arm bases | Defendants contend no Ohio contacts or lack of consent to jurisdiction | There is no personal jurisdiction over the filing defendants |
| Did defendants waive the personal jurisdiction defense by participation | Plaintiffs argue waiver occurred by appearance and filing | Defendants argue they preserved the defense and did not waive it | No waiver; defense preserved |
| Can the MDL transferee court transfer MDL cases to other districts under Lexecon | Lexecon does not bar transfers in all circumstances; may transfer in interest of justice | Lexecon prohibits MDL transfer to itself or to other districts; remand or dismissal required | MDL transferee court may not transfer cases; Lexecon requires remand or dismissal |
| Whether service of process was improper under Rule 4 | Service by counsel via certified mail to business addresses suffices if notice is shown | Only Clerk-assisted certified mail is proper; service insufficient otherwise | Motions to dismiss for improper service denied; green cards can satisfy proof of notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Conn v. Zakharov, 667 F.3d 705 (6th Cir. 2012) (Ohio long‑arm statute not coextensive with due process; need specific jurisdiction)
- Kauffman Racing Equip., L.L.C. v. Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81 (Ohio 2010) (two-step inquiry for Ohio personal jurisdiction under long-arm statute)
- Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (U.S. 1998) (MDL transferee court cannot transfer cases to itself for trial; remand or dismissal required)
- Conn v. Zakharov, 667 F.3d 705 (6th Cir. 2012) (reiterates Ohio long-arm limits; general jurisdiction not recognized)