Martinez v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co.
82 A.3d 1
| Del. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- This Delaware court resolves motions in a multi-case asbestos dispute involving Argentine plaintiffs alleging exposure at DASRL plants in Argentina and claims against DuPont as the parent company.
- Rocha worked at the DASRL Berazategui plant (1963–1980) and died of mesothelioma; Martinez, Rocha’s widow, sues DuPont as the defendant.
- Martinez’s complaint asserts multiple theories, including direct participant liability, veil-piercing, and agency-style negligence, naming DuPont instead of its Argentine subsidiary as the defendant.
- DuPont moves to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, failure to join an indispensable party (DASRL), lack of viable direct-participant claims under Argentine law, and pleading deficiencies.
- The court treats some claims as summary-judgment issues given affidavits and expert declarations, and ultimately grants dismissal for many reasons, including lack of proper party and lack of recognized direct-participant liability in Argentina.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martinez sued the correct party | Martinez sues DuPont, alleging direct liability and control over DASRL. | DASRL, not DuPont, was Rocha's employer; Counts III, IV, V, VII target the wrong party. | Counts III, IV, V, VII dismissed; wrong party named. |
| Whether direct participant liability is recognized in Argentina | Argentine law recognizes direct-participant liability by a parent for a subsidiary's torts. | No Argentine doctrine or statute supports direct-participant liability as pleaded. | Direct-participant liability not recognized; expert evidence insufficient to establish doctrine in Argentina. |
| Whether DASRL is an indispensable party under Rule 19 | Plaintiff should not be required to join a foreign subsidiary as indispensable. | DASRL is the real party in interest and its absence would impair remedies and risk inconsistent judgments. | DASRL is indispensable; action is dismissible for nonjoinder. |
| Whether forum non conveniens supports dismissal | Argentine forum is adequate; Delaware is appropriate for a neutral forum. | Overwhelming hardship in litigating in Delaware due to foreign law, witnesses, language, records, and lack of connection to Delaware. | Forum non conveniens dismissal granted; Delaware would impose overwhelming hardship. |
Key Cases Cited
- Candlewood Timber Group, LLC v. Pan American Energy, LLC, 859 A.2d 989 (Del. 2004) (forum non conveniens dismissal where improper party actions merit dismissal)
- Bestfoods v. United States, 524 U.S. 51 (1998) (corporate veil piercing and corporate parent liability principles)
- Boggs v. Blue Diamond Coal Co., 590 F.2d 655 (6th Cir. 1979) (veil-piercing and parent-subsidiary liability concepts)
- Ison v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 729 A.2d 832 (Del. 1999) (foreign plaintiffs and application of forum non conveniens principles)
- Taylor v. LSI Logic Corp., 689 A.2d 1196 (Del. 1997) (plausibility/conceivability standard in pleading)
- Mar-Land Indus. Contractors, Inc. v. Caribbean Petroleum Refining, L.P., 777 A.2d 774 (Del. 2001) (indispensable party considerations in product/tort cases)
- In re Asbestos Litig. (Abou-Antoun), 929 A.2d 373 (Del. Super. Ct. 2006) (forum non conveniens and related considerations in asbestos cases)