Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts, LLC, 2:17-cv-00048

Plaintiffs Matthew and Sylvia Hodjera sued multiple defendants alleging Mr. Hodjera’s mesothelioma (diagnosed May 20, 2016) was caused by asbestos-containing products; exposure occurred in Toronto between 1986–1994.
Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. (WCD) is a New Jersey corporation (principal place of business in Connecticut) that ceased active operations in 2004 and has no offices, employees, or agents in Washington.
The complaint lists WCD as a defendant but contains no factual allegations tying WCD’s products to Mr. Hodjera’s exposure or to Washington; WCD is not mentioned elsewhere in the pleading.
WCD moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim; the Court considered only personal jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs submitted limited evidence suggesting WCD (via a Metropolitan Talc plant) supplied talc to Johnson & Johnson for nationwide distribution and a 1970 letter regarding potential sales to Johnson & Johnson.
The Court granted WCD’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against WCD without prejudice, allowing leave to move to amend if jurisdictional defects can be cured.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court has general jurisdiction over WCD	Not contested; plaintiffs did not argue general jurisdiction	WCD lacks substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts with Washington	No general jurisdiction — WCD not "at home" in Washington
Whether the Court has specific jurisdiction over WCD	WCD purposefully availed itself of Washington by selling talc to J&J for nationwide distribution, placing products in interstate commerce	WCD has no purposeful contacts with Washington related to Hodjera’s Toronto exposure; complaint lacks any nexus to Washington	No specific jurisdiction — plaintiffs’ claims do not arise from WCD’s contacts with Washington
Whether plaintiffs’ evidence (Metropolitan Talc plant, 1970 letter) establishes a sufficient nexus	Evidence shows WCD placed talc into the stream of commerce and that products could reach Washington	Even if talc went into interstate commerce, plaintiffs fail to show Mr. Hodjera’s injury arose from contacts with Washington	Insufficient — attenuated evidence does not satisfy the ‘‘arising out of’’ requirement for specific jurisdiction
Whether dismissal should be with or without leave to amend	Plaintiffs requested leave to amend to cure defects	WCD did not oppose amendment in principle (court evaluates under Rule 11/Lopez)	Dismissal without prejudice; court grants leave to seek leave to amend if defects can be cured and a proposed amended complaint is filed by the deadline

Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general-jurisdiction standard: "at home" test)
Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122 (plaintiff bears burden to show personal jurisdiction; prima facie showing standard)
Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068 (prima facie showing through pleadings and affidavits avoids dismissal absent evidentiary hearing)
Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (specific jurisdiction test: purposeful direction, claim arises out of contacts, reasonableness)
Worldwide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (stream-of-commerce and foreseeability considerations for jurisdiction)
Doe v. American Nat. Red Cross, 112 F.3d 1048 (requirement that the plaintiff's claim arise out of defendant's forum contacts)
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (liberal leave-to-amend policy; dismissal without leave only if amendment cannot cure defects)