F. I. H. v. Doe Run
4:19-cv-02827
E.D. Mo.Mar 22, 2022Background
- Plaintiffs are >1,600 Peruvian children who allege lead and other toxic contamination from the La Oroya smelter operated by Doe Run Peru and controlled through a chain of U.S. parent companies and officers (Renco Group, Renco Holdings, Ira Rennert).
- Plaintiffs filed 33 Missouri state-court cases (≈90 plaintiffs per case); 17 were removed and consolidated in the Eastern District of Missouri; 16 more await consolidation.
- Plaintiffs allege Renco/Rennert exercised complete domination of Doe Run Peru, made decisions in Missouri/New York (financing, contracting, cleanup budgeting) that caused the toxic releases and injuries.
- Renco and Rennert removed the cases, answered and litigated for years, then filed a 2017 motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction following Supreme Court decisions (BNSF, Bristol-Myers).
- The court held defendants waived a jurisdictional challenge by prior answers and litigation; independently, plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of specific jurisdiction under Missouri’s long-arm statute based on transacting business, alter-ego allegations, and officer-level participation.
- The court denied Renco Group, Renco Holdings, Inc., and Ira Rennert’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and ordered the ruling docketed in the related cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of personal jurisdiction | Renco/Rennert litigated and answered, so jurisdiction valid. | Any prior litigation conduct preserved jurisdictional objections; Bristol-Myers created new law excuse. | Defendants waived the defense by answering and extensively litigating; Bristol-Myers did not revive the defense. |
| Effect of Bristol-Myers / BNSF | Bristol-Myers simply restates specific-jurisdiction principles and does not bar jurisdiction here. | Bristol-Myers (and BNSF) limits jurisdiction; supports dismissal for nonresident plaintiffs/defendants. | Bristol-Myers/BNSF did not change outcome; they reiterate specific/general jurisdiction limits but do not defeat plaintiffs’ prima facie showing. |
| Specific jurisdiction under Missouri law | Renco/Rennert transacted business in Missouri (contracts, financing, meetings, cleanup approvals) and caused torts related to those contacts. | Defendants lack sufficient Missouri contacts tied to plaintiffs’ Peruvian injuries. | Plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of specific jurisdiction: Missouri long-arm and due-process minimum contacts satisfied given alleged contracting, decision-making, and relation of claims to those contacts. |
| Individual liability / officer jurisdiction (Rennert) | Rennert participated in decisions (budget approvals, cleanup funding) and had actual/constructive knowledge, supporting personal liability and jurisdiction. | Mere officer status without Missouri-specific acts cannot confer personal jurisdiction. | Allegations that Rennert participated with knowledge in actionable corporate wrongdoing suffice at prima facie stage to assert jurisdiction over him individually. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (reiterates specific-jurisdiction requirement that suit arise out of or relate to forum contacts)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (clarified limits of general jurisdiction)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (established minimum contacts/due process framework)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (focuses on defendant’s forum contacts rather than plaintiff’s location)
- K-V Pharm. Co. v. J. Uriach & CIA, S.A., 648 F.3d 588 (prima facie showing standard for personal jurisdiction in Eighth Circuit)
- Romak USA, Inc. v. Rich, 384 F.3d 979 (specific jurisdiction requires relation between forum contacts and cause of action)
- Epps v. Stewart Info. Servs. Corp., 327 F.3d 642 (parent corporation subject to forum jurisdiction when acting as alter-ego of forum subsidiary)
- Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (jurisdictional right is waivable by appearance or litigation conduct)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for plausible claims)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (rule that courts accept complaint allegations as true on motion to dismiss)