Henry Kalama v. Matson Navigation Co.
875 F.3d 297
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 1989 merchant-marine ("MARDOC") plaintiffs sued many shipowners for asbestos exposure in the N.D. of Ohio; Judge Lambros found many defendants lacked personal jurisdiction in Ohio and said those cases should be transferred unless a defendant filed an answer (by Jan. 5, 1990) to remain.
- Several shipowner defendants (represented by Thompson Hine) filed answers “under protest” preserving lack-of-jurisdiction defenses and sought interlocutory review of the transfer order; the transfer orders were never finally certified on appeal.
- The cases were later consolidated into MDL No. 875 in the E.D. of Pennsylvania. In 2013–2014 the MDL court (Bartel and Jacobs opinions) granted thousands of motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as to many shipowners, concluding the answers did not constitute waiver.
- Plaintiffs argued defendants waived or forfeited the defense by filing answers and through later conduct (briefs, hearing statements, special-master affidavit); the MDL court rejected that showing for the nineteen defendants at issue and dismissed them.
- Plaintiffs appealed after final judgment in the N.D. of Ohio; the Sixth Circuit held it had appellate jurisdiction to review the MDL court’s orders and affirmed dismissal, concluding the MDL court did not abuse its discretion on waiver/forfeiture, law-of-the-case, or transfer authority grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing answers in N.D. Ohio waived personal-jurisdiction defense | Answers filed in response to Lambros’ instruction were an ultimatum to waive; filing answers therefore shows consent | Answers expressly preserved jurisdictional objections and were filed “under protest” pending appeal | No waiver — district court reasonably took answers at face value and did not abuse discretion in finding no waiver |
| Whether later conduct (briefs, hearing remarks, affidavit) caused forfeiture | Plaintiffs point to counsel statements, opposition briefs, and Special Master Martyn’s affidavit as evidence defendants forfeited the defense | Defendants argue the statements were vague, pertained to different case clusters, or do not show specific defendants abandoned the defense | Forfeiture not proved by preponderance — evidence too vague or not tied to the plaintiffs’ specific suits |
| Whether law-of-the-case prevented dismissal | Plaintiffs say MDL court conflicted with Judge Lambros’ rulings | Defendants say MDL court followed Lambros on lack of jurisdiction and addressed new issues (waiver, transferability) | No law-of-the-case violation — MDL court did not contradict Lambros’ holdings |
| Whether MDL transferee could transfer or remand per Lexecon and §1407 | Plaintiffs sought transfer to a venue with jurisdiction or JPML remand with transfer recommendation | Defendants argue Lexecon bars a transferee from granting §1404(a) transfers and MDL could dismiss improper parties | MDL court correctly held Lexecon precludes direct §1404(a) transfer by transferee; dismissal (rather than further transfer) was permissible under circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998) (MDL transferee court may not transfer actions under §1404(a) to another district)
- Gerber v. Riordan, 649 F.3d 514 (6th Cir. 2011) (forfeiture where defendant’s conduct creates reasonable expectation it will defend on merits)
- Mobile Anesthesiologists Chi., LLC v. Anesthesia Assocs. of Hous. Metroplex, P.A., 623 F.3d 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (explaining forfeiture standard based on plaintiff’s reasonable expectations)
- EEOC v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 188 F.3d 695 (6th Cir. 1999) (appellate review of orders issued by a court outside the circuit when those orders become reviewable after final judgment)
- Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979) (law-of-the-case doctrine principles)