In re: Asbesto Products v.
16-4148
| 3rd Cir. | Dec 28, 2017Background
- In the late 1980s seamen Perdreauville and Blue sued multiple shipowners for asbestos injuries; cases were consolidated in a Northern District of Ohio maritime docket (MARDOC) and later transferred into multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- Defendants (Shipowner Appellees) were represented by the same Thompson, Hine & Flory counsel who, in 1989–91 proceedings before Chief Judge Lambros, filed a Master Answer asserting lack of personal jurisdiction and repeatedly objected to transfers of certain clusters of cases.
- At a January 8, 1991 hearing addressing cluster management and transfers, defense counsel stated that their clients had waived jurisdictional objections to proceed in Cleveland (Ohio) but objected to trying the cases in Detroit (Michigan).
- Despite objections, Judge Lambros issued an order transferring several clusters (including Perdreauville and Blue) to the Eastern District of Michigan; the defendants then sought retransfer to Ohio and later opposed consolidation into the Asbestos MDL.
- Years later (2012–2014) the MDL court dismissed Perdreauville’s and Blue’s claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding defendants had preserved their jurisdictional defenses; appellants appealed, arguing defendants had waived those defenses by their earlier statements and filings.
- The Third Circuit, applying its prior decision in In re Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig. (Braun), concluded the defendants had waived personal jurisdiction defenses and reversed the dismissals, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of personal jurisdiction by on-record statements at Jan. 8, 1991 hearing | Plaintiffs: defense counsel’s statement consenting to proceed in Ohio waived jurisdictional objections as to the clusters at risk of transfer (including plaintiffs’ cases). | Defendants: their January statements were limited, did not concede jurisdiction for transferred clusters, and they consistently preserved the defense. | Held: Counsel’s on-record statements amounted to a clear waiver of personal jurisdiction for the clusters at issue. |
| Effect of post-transfer filings (motions to vacate transfer / requests to retain in Cleveland) | Plaintiffs: defendants’ later filings seeking retention/retransfer to Ohio confirm waiver and consent to Ohio jurisdiction. | Defendants: filings show resistance to MDL transfer, not affirmative consent to litigate in Ohio on jurisdictional grounds. | Held: Post-transfer filings corroborated waiver—they requested retention/return to Ohio and thus reinforced consent. |
| Applicability of Braun precedent | Plaintiffs: Braun controls; same counsel, same statements, and same record facts mandate the same result. | Defendants: Braun misapplied abuse-of-discretion review and erred factually; this case is distinguishable. | Held: Braun governs; the Third Circuit applied abuse-of-discretion review properly and reached the same conclusion here. |
| Standard of review (abuse of discretion) | Plaintiffs: district court’s factual reading (that no waiver occurred) was clearly erroneous. | Defendants: district court applied proper standards and its factual findings should be upheld. | Held: Court found district court’s contrary factual interpretation was erroneous under abuse-of-discretion review and reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig., [citation="661 F. App'x 173"] (3d Cir. 2016) (Braun) (defendants waived personal jurisdiction by counsel statements at cluster-management hearing)
- Kalama v. Matson Navigation Co., Inc., 875 F.3d 297 (6th Cir. 2017) (agreeing with Third Circuit that MDL court clearly erred in finding no waiver)
- Hamilton v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 197 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 1999) (discussing standards for reviewing waiver and preservation of jurisdictional defenses)