Mejia v. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services (India) Private Limited, 1:15-cv-00333

Plaintiff Luz Mejia sued on behalf of herself and her deceased son for injuries from a defective "Mosaic Torch"; she named Bureau Veritas Consumer Product Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. (BV India) as defendant after alleging BV India performed safety testing that was inadequate.
Plaintiff originally litigated similar claims in a San Antonio case (Mejia I) where BV India was not initially a defendant; discovery there included a voluntary deposition of a BV India corporate representative and a denied motion to add BV India.
Plaintiff filed the present suit in state court, which BV India removed; BV India moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service.
Instead of opposing jurisdiction on the merits, Mejia sought voluntary dismissal without prejudice conditioned on tolling the statute of limitations to refile in a different forum.
The record (BV India affidavits) showed BV India has no physical presence, employees, bank accounts, offices, or testing in Texas; Mejia produced no clear evidence of continuous Texas contacts or of BV India being an alter ego of its related Bureau Veritas entities.
Court denied conditional voluntary dismissal and granted BV India’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (service challenge not reached).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal without prejudice should be granted conditionally tolling limitations	Mejia: allow dismissal and toll limitations 120 days to refile elsewhere	BV India: opposes tolling; requests fees/costs if dismissed	Denied — plaintiff failed to justify tolling; dismissal not granted on her terms
Whether Texas courts have general jurisdiction over BV India	Mejia: BV India "does business" in Texas	BV India: no offices, employees, property, bank accounts, or testing in Texas	No general jurisdiction — contacts not continuous/systematic
Whether Texas courts have specific jurisdiction over BV India	Mejia: BV India’s testing caused harm and report was sent to U.S. parties	BV India: testing not performed in Texas; communications were to Ohio/India parties	No specific jurisdiction — plaintiff failed to show forum-related contacts giving rise to claim
Whether contacts of affiliated Bureau Veritas entities can be imputed to BV India	Mejia: entities share management/profits; vicarious liability should attach	BV India: corporate separateness; plaintiff must show clear evidence to rebut separateness	No attribution — plaintiff did not present the required clear evidence to pierce corporate form

Elbaor v. Tripath Imaging, Inc., 279 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2002) (voluntary dismissal should be freely granted absent plain legal prejudice)
In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Prods. Liab. Litig., 628 F.3d 157 (5th Cir. 2010) (court may impose conditions on voluntary dismissal to prevent unfair prejudice)
LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601 (5th Cir. 1976) (district courts should impose only conditions necessary to alleviate harm to defendant)
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts standard for personal jurisdiction)
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (distinction between general and specific jurisdiction)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment and relation to the claim)
Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002) (Texas long-arm statute reaches to constitutional limits; analyze due process)
Freudensprung v. Offshore Tech. Servs., Inc., 379 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2004) (contacts of affiliated entities are generally not imputed absent clear evidence; provides factors for corporate attribution)
McFadin v. Gerber, 587 F.3d 753 (5th Cir. 2009) (specific jurisdiction requires suit to arise out of forum-related contacts)