988 F. Supp. 2d 1056
D. Minn.2013Background
- Uponor Corp., a Finland-based parent, oversees global plumbing-system subsidiaries including Uponor, Inc. which operates in Minnesota; the case concerns pex plumbing components and yellow-brass fittings susceptible to dezincification.
- Plaintiffs are homeowners in New Mexico, Arizona, and California who allege the Components fail due to dezincification, causing corrosion, leaks, lead leaching, and property damage.
- Defendants marketed pex systems with Components claimed to meet ASTM standards F877, F1960, and F2080; Plaintiffs allege deceptive advertising and failure to warn regarding dezincification.
- This action follows earlier Related MDL litigation (F1807) settled in 2012; JPML denied centralized consolidation for F1960 cases, but encouraged voluntary coordination, leading some actions to Minnesota or transfer.
- On June 24, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b); On August 9, 2013, Uponor Corp. moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the court granted in part and denied in part.
- The court analyzes whether Uponor Corp. may be sued under general, specific, or alter-ego jurisdiction based on its relationship with Uponor, Inc., and whether Plaintiffs have standing to pursue warranty and tort claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Uponor Corp. | Plaintiffs argue corporate-control and symbiotic relation with Uponor, Inc. establish alter ego jurisdiction. | Uponor Corp. contends no general or specific jurisdiction; no alter ego close enough to justify jurisdiction. | Plaintiff prima facie shows jurisdiction via alter ego, but full proof required at trial. |
| Whether Uponor Group should be dismissed | Group is not a separate entity; claims lie with the corporate family. | Uponor Group is not a distinct entity and should be dismissed. | Uponor Group dismissed. |
| Standing to sue for warranty claims | All plaintiffs have a manufactured defect per Zum, alleging manifestation via dezincification. | Standing requires actual injury; many plaintiffs lack manifestation of defect. | George and Gibbs have standing; several plaintiffs are dismissed for lack of standing. |
| Economic loss doctrine and tort claims | Some tort claims may survive under NM or AZ law and toxic-substance exception. | Economic loss doctrine bars purely economic losses; Minnesota law applies. | Economic loss doctrine bars most tort claims; only warranty claims proceed; choice-of-law issues reserved for amendment. |
| California subclass claims timing and parallel litigation | California residents’ claims should proceed; no preclusion from related Sweidan action. | Stay or dismissal to avoid duplicative litigation and class conflicts. | California claims dismissed without prejudice pending future rulings in Sweidan. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Paper Box, Inc. v. U.S. Kids, Inc., 22 F.3d 816 (8th Cir.1994) (five-factor test for minimum contacts; primary importance on first three factors)
- Viasystems, Inc. v. EBM-Papst St. Georgen GmbH & Co., KG, 646 F.3d 589 (8th Cir.2011) (alter ego/parent-subsidiary considerations in jurisdiction with focus on control and form)
- Anderson v. Dassault Aviation, 361 F.3d 449 (8th Cir.2004) (symbiotic parent-subsidiary relationship can justify jurisdiction)
- Epps v. Stewart Info. Servs. Corp., 327 F.3d 642 (8th Cir.2003) (limits on corporate-parent liability for jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (limits on general jurisdiction; Goodyear framework)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (recognition of limits of general jurisdiction and agency theory nuances)
- Minnesota case cited: In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig., 644 F.3d 604 (8th Cir.2011) (standing for warranty claims; manifestation of defect suffices)