In Re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI)
661 F. App'x 173
3rd Cir.2016Background
- Three former seamen (Wilson, Braun, Guiden) sued shipowners Matson and American in Ohio in the late 1980s alleging asbestos injuries under the Jones Act and general maritime law; cases were consolidated in the Northern District of Ohio (MARDOC).
- Judge Lambros found insufficient Ohio contacts for many shipowners and planned transfers of certain clusters; MARDOC Orders 40 and 41 deferred final transfer orders and instructed plaintiffs to choose forums; the orders identified Matson as lacking Ohio jurisdiction but did not mention American.
- Matson (and later American, through adoption) filed a Master Answer asserting lack of personal jurisdiction; litigation proceeded with cases grouped into clusters and discussed at a January 1991 hearing about transferring four clusters (a “Michigan cluster”) to the Eastern District of Michigan.
- At that hearing, defense counsel stated their clients “did not agree or concede to trials of any of these cases in Detroit” and said trials in Detroit were something their clients waived jurisdictional objections to proceed in Cleveland; Chief Judge Lambros had earlier described moving the first four clusters to Detroit — which included the seamen’s cases.
- The clusters were transferred (and later the Asbestos MDL consolidated these matters in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania); when activated in 2011, Matson and American moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the district court (Robreno) ruled they had preserved the defense and did not waive it as to these plaintiffs.
- The Third Circuit reversed, holding that Matson and American waived their personal-jurisdiction defenses by consenting at the January 1991 hearing to litigate the relevant cases in the Northern District of Ohio and by subsequent filings seeking return of those cases to Ohio.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants waived personal-jurisdiction defenses | Wilson/Braun/Guiden: defense counsel’s January 1991 statements show consent to litigate in Ohio; waiver occurred | Matson/American: they preserved jurisdictional objections in pleadings, raised defense repeatedly, and any January statements were limited or strategic | Held: Defendants waived the defense for these cases by consenting to litigate in Ohio at the 1991 hearing and by post-transfer filings |
| Scope of the 1991 hearing statements (limited waiver vs. broad waiver) | Plaintiffs: “these cases” referred to clusters transferred to Michigan, including these suits | Defendants: statements referred only to 16 Ohio-tried cases and did not include Wilson/Braun/Guiden | Held: Court rejects the narrow interpretation; statements covered the clusters that included these plaintiffs |
| Effect of contemporaneous pleadings asserting lack of jurisdiction | Plaintiffs: post-pleading conduct can waive a defense despite answers asserting it | Defendants: preserving the defense in answers and later renewals shows no waiver | Held: Waiver occurs through conduct—pleadings preserving a defense do not prevent waiver by express consent to litigate |
| Standard of review for waiver determination | Plaintiffs: de novo review not necessary | Defendants: appellate court should defer to district court findings | Held: Abuse-of-discretion standard applies; Third Circuit found the district court abused discretion in concluding no waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011) (personal jurisdiction protects individual liberty and is a waivable right)
- Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982) (a party may waive personal-jurisdiction objections)
- In re Tex. E. Transmission Corp. PCB Contamination Ins. Coverage Litig., 15 F.3d 1230 (3d Cir. 1994) (waiver may be found where a party actually litigates merits or demonstrates willingness to engage in extensive litigation in the forum)
- Bel-Ray Co., Inc. v. Chemrite (Pty) Ltd., 181 F.3d 435 (3d Cir. 1999) (consent to jurisdiction can be inferred from litigation conduct and strategy)
- Lechoslaw v. Bank of Am., N.A., 618 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2010) (standard for appellate review of discretionary determinations)