United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
NATHANIEL M. GORTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
case arises out of an industrial accident in which Steven
Pajak (“Pajak” or “plaintiff”)
suffered serious personal injuries. He brings claims for
negligence against Rohm & Haas Company (“Rohm &
Haas”), Rohm & Haas Electronic Materials LLC
(“RHEM”) and The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow
Chemical”) (collectively “the Dow
defendants”) as the entities that owned or maintained
the container and the chemical manufacturing facility where
the accident occurred.[1] He also asserts claims for 1) negligence,
2) breach of express and implied warranties of
merchantability and fitness and 3) product liability against
Alfa Laval, Inc. (“Alfa Laval”) which allegedly
designed, manufactured, marketed and/or distributed the
purportedly defective container involved in the explosion
that injured plaintiff.
Pajak
alleges that the Dow defendants failed 1) to maintain in a
reasonably safe condition the facility and the container and
2) to adopt a reasonably safe method or provide adequate
training to plaintiff for the “trimethylaluminum
reclamation process” in which he was engaged when
injured. He also submits that Alfa Laval negligently
designed, manufactured, tested and/or placed into the
channels of commerce a defective and/or inherently dangerous
container which caused the explosion and his resulting
injuries.
Before
this Court are 1) Alfa Laval's motion to dismiss the
claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), 2) RHEM's motion to dismiss
Count II of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction or for
failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6) and to award attorneys' fees and costs
incurred in connection with its motion and 3) the motion of
Rohm & Haas and Dow Chemical for judgment on the
pleadings as to Counts I and III of the complaint pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c).
I.
Background
A.
The Parties
Pajak
is a resident of Billerica, Massachusetts. He was employed at
a chemical manufacturing facility owned, operated and/or
maintained by the Dow defendants which is located in North
Andover, Massachusetts (“the Facility”), although
it is unclear exactly which of the three Dow defendants was
his direct employer.
Rohm
& Haas is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in Collegeville, Pennsylvania. It manufactures
specialty chemicals for use in building and construction,
electronic devices, packaging and household and personal care
products. Dow Chemical is a Delaware corporation with a
principal place of business in Midland, Michigan. It is one
of the largest American, multi-national, chemical
corporations and it manufactures plastics, chemicals and
agricultural products. RHEM is a limited liability company
that manufactures and distributes specialty chemicals and
materials to the electronic and opto-electronic industries.
RHEM is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rohm & Haas which,
in turn, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow Chemical. Dow
Chemical is a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow, Inc. which is a
publicly held company (and not a named defendant). The three
defendants together allegedly owned, operated and maintained
the Facility.
Alfa
Laval is a New Jersey corporation with a principal place of
business in Richmond, Virginia. It manufactures and supplies
products used to heat, cool, separate and transport various
products, such as water, oil, chemicals, beverages and
foodstuffs. Alfa Laval allegedly designed, manufactured
and/or distributed the allegedly defective container that
Pajak encountered at the Facility.
B.
The Accident
In or
about January, 2016, Pajak was working at the Facility when
oxygen came into contact with trimethylaluminum contained in
the allegedly defective container, resulting in an explosion
and fire. Plaintiff sustained serious personal injuries as a
result of the explosion, including serious burns to his face
and hands and loss of vision in his left eye.
Plaintiff
sought and obtained compensation from RHEM under the
Massachusetts Workers' Compensation Act (“the
MWCA” or “the Act”), M.G.L. c. 152. In
August, 2017, the Massachusetts Department of Industrial
Accidents (“the DIA”) approved his lump sum
settlement agreement with RHEM and its workers'
compensation insurer pursuant to § 48 of the MWCA. He
was paid $253, 000 as a result of that settlement. Moreover,
in the form submitted to the DIA for approval of the
settlement, Pajak explicitly acknowledged that RHEM was his
employer and that the payment he received was in redemption
of the liability owed to him by RHEM under the MWCA.
C.
Procedural History
In
January, 2019, plaintiff filed a complaint in the
Massachusetts Superior Court for Essex County. In February, a
notice of removal was filed by Alfa Laval (to which the Dow
defendants consented), invoking this Court's federal
diversity jurisdiction.
Shortly
thereafter, Alfa Laval filed a motion to dismiss the claims
against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. It submits that
1) plaintiff has not alleged any facts to establish general
personal jurisdiction over it in Massachusetts nor 2) has he
sufficiently identified the allegedly defective product to
determine whether Alfa Laval purposefully directed that
product into Massachusetts or whether it ended up in the
forum fortuitously. Alfa Laval also contends that plaintiff
has failed to state a claim for negligence, breach of
warranty or product liability because he has not sufficiently
identified the product at issue. Plaintiff responds that he
has reason to believe (based on communications with the Dow
defendants) that Alfa Laval manufactured and/or supplied the
allegedly defective product and asserts that he is entitled
to some jurisdictional discovery in order to identify the
specific product and the company that manufactured and/or
supplied it to the Dow defendants.
RHEM
also filed a motion to dismiss Count II of the complaint for
lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. It
also requested an award of attorneys' fees and costs
incurred in connection with that motion. It maintains that
§§ 23, 24 and 48 of the MWCA precludes Pajak from
seeking recovery from RHEM for his injuries because he has
already been compensated pursuant to the lump sum settlement
agreement with RHEM. RHEM claims that plaintiff's refusal
to dismiss his claim against it is unreasonable and vexatious
and thus it should also be awarded attorneys' fees and
costs incurred in connection with that motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1927.
Plaintiff
responds that he currently lacks sufficient information to
determine which of the three Dow defendants was his employer
at the time of the accident. He volunteers to dismiss the
appropriate party upon receiving the relevant information and
counters that he is the party entitled to attorneys' fees
and costs in connection with RHEM's motion because it is
the failure of the Dow defendants to provide his employment
file that has created this jurisdictional issue.
In
April, 2019, Rohm & Haas and Dow Chemical filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings as to Counts I and III of the
complaint. They assert that plaintiff has failed to allege
facts sufficient to establish either 1) how Rohm & Haas
or Dow Chemical breached their alleged duty of care to Pajak
or 2) how that alleged breach of duty caused his injuries.
Plaintiff rejoins that he is not required to plead detailed
and specific facts at this stage and that he has alleged
facts sufficient to establish the elements of both breach of
duty and causation. He also requests, in the alternative, to
be allowed to file an amended complaint.
II.
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and for
Failure to State a Claim
A.
Legal Standard
On a
motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction,
plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the Court has
authority to exercise jurisdiction over defendants. See
Mass. Sch. of Law at Andover, Inc. v. ABA, 142 F.3d
26, 33-34 (1st Cir. 1998). The Court must take facts alleged
by plaintiff as true and construe disputed facts favorably
towards plaintiff. See Ticketmaster-New York, Inc. v.
Alioto, 26 F.3d 201, 203 (1st Cir. 1994).
In a
diversity suit, this Court acts as “the functional
equivalent of a state court sitting in the forum
state.” See Astro-Med, Inc. v. Nihon Kohden
America, Inc., 591 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2009). As such,
this Court must determine whether 1) jurisdiction is
permitted by the Massachusetts long-arm statute and 2) the
exercise of jurisdiction coheres with the Due Process Clause
of the United States Constitution. Id. Alfa Laval
does not contend that plaintiff has failed to satisfy the
Massachusetts long-arm statute nor does plaintiff assert that
Alfa Laval is subject to general personal jurisdiction in
Massachusetts and thus this Court will focus on the
requirements of specific personal jurisdiction.
This
Court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction when
defendants have certain “minimum contacts” with
Massachusetts such that the maintenance of the suit does not
offend “traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice”. Int'l Shoe Co. v. State
of Wash., Office of Unemployment Comp. & Placement,326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotation marks omitted).
...