In Re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI)
921 F.3d 98
3rd Cir.2019Background
- 1980s: Thousands of maritime asbestos suits filed in N.D. Ohio (MARDOC). Judge Lambros ruled in 1989 that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over several shipowners but proposed a procedure allowing defendants to either consent to stay in Ohio (by filing answers) or be transferred.
- MARDOC Orders 40 and 41 (Nov–Dec 1989) set a January 5, 1990 answer deadline; judge indicated filing an answer would permit a defendant to remain and would be treated as waiving the jurisdiction defense for transfer purposes.
- Shipowners filed answers by the deadline that included statements reserving the personal-jurisdiction defense and also filed motions for interlocutory appeal; some other defendants did not answer and were transferred.
- In 1991 the cases were centralized in the Pennsylvania asbestos MDL. In 2013–2014 the MDL Court held that many shipowners had preserved (not waived) personal-jurisdiction defenses and dismissed claims for lack of jurisdiction; three mariners appealed.
- Third Circuit majority held the MDL Court abused its discretion: given the colloquy, orders, and defendants’ conduct (objecting to transfer, complying with the answer deadline, continuing litigation), the shipowners implicitly waived and/or forfeited their personal-jurisdiction defenses; MDL dismissals reversed (except one appeal dismissed on res judicata grounds).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Munnier/Schroeder/Williams) | Defendant's Argument (Shipowners) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing answers in N.D. Ohio (after Judge Lambros ruled no jurisdiction) waived personal-jurisdiction defenses | Filing answers under Judge Lambros' announced procedure amounted to waiver; defendants elected to litigate in Ohio | Filing answers with explicit reservation preserved the defense under Rule 12 and Neifeld; they sought interlocutory review | Held: Waiver — defendants’ conduct (equivocation, objection to transfer, filing answers per agreed procedure) constituted implicit waiver/forfeiture; MDL erred in concluding no waiver |
| Whether defendants forfeited the defense by failing to diligently pursue jurisdictional objections in N.D. Ohio | Defendants acquiesced in ongoing Ohio proceedings and failed to press jurisdictional remedies; that inaction constitutes forfeiture | Defendants litigated jurisdictional issues and later re-raised them in MDL; inactivity was not dilatory | Held: Forfeiture — failure to pursue the defense diligently supported forfeiture; contributes to reversal |
| Whether the MDL Court applied correct legal standards re: preservation vs. waiver | Plaintiffs: MDL misapplied law by treating written reservation as sufficient despite conduct indicating waiver | Defendants: Federal Rules allow asserting jurisdictional defenses in answers without waiver; judge could not strip that right | Held: MDL misapplied law — words alone insufficient; conduct consistent with waiver controls; Third Circuit declines to follow Sixth Circuit’s contrary approach in Kalama |
| Whether appellate jurisdiction and finality existed for MDL orders | Plaintiffs: MDL order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction was final and appealable | Defendants: Not argued to defeat appealability here | Held: Order was final and appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 |
Key Cases Cited
- Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982) (personal-jurisdiction is a waivable personal right; conduct can constitute submission)
- Neifeld v. Steinberg, 438 F.2d 423 (3d Cir. 1971) (answer may assert lack of personal jurisdiction without waiver)
- In re Tex. E. Transmission Corp. PCB Contamination Ins. Coverage Litig., 15 F.3d 1230 (3d Cir. 1994) (party consents to jurisdiction by litigating merits or engaging extensively in forum)
- Bel-Ray Co. v. Chemrite (Pty) Ltd., 181 F.3d 435 (3d Cir. 1999) (seeking affirmative relief normally submits a party to jurisdiction)
- Kalama v. Matson Navigation Co., 875 F.3d 297 (6th Cir. 2017) (contrasting Sixth Circuit view that defendants did not waive by filing answers under MARDOC orders)
- Sharp v. Johnson, 669 F.3d 144 (3d Cir. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for waiver rulings)
- United States v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (deference to district court case-management decisions)