Paroni v. General Electric UK Holdings LTD.

Background

Eugene Paroni was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma and later died. Elodie Paroni alleged that asbestos exposure during Eugene’s work, including his work at a plant powered by a Ruston Gas Turbines TA-1500 turbine, caused his illness. She sued Alstom SA on the theory that Alstom was a successor-in-interest to Ruston and therefore responsible for the alleged asbestos liabilities.

The opinion described a series of name changes and transactions involving Ruston, European Gas Turbines Limited, Alstom entities, Demag, Siemens, and Alstom. The court noted that Alstom did not challenge its alleged successor status in this motion but reserved the right to do so later.

The Paronis had previously sued Alstom in California. The California court granted Alstom’s motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied a request for jurisdictional discovery. Elodie then filed this action in the Southern District of New York, asserting claims including negligence, gross negligence, strict products liability, wrongful death, and loss of consortium.

Alstom’s Motion and Elodie’s Request

Alstom moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority over a defendant. Elodie relied on Alstom’s website statement that its “U.S. Headquarters” were in New York and on allegations concerning Alstom’s New York subsidiary, real estate holdings, personnel, and other U.S. contacts.

Alstom argued that its headquarters were in France and that the New York headquarters identified on the website belonged to a subsidiary in the transportation industry that had no connection to the case. Elodie argued that these statements by Alstom’s counsel were unsupported by sworn evidence and requested discovery into Alstom’s New York business activities and its relationship with the subsidiary.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a plaintiff seeking to defeat a personal-jurisdiction motion must show both a legal basis for jurisdiction and compliance with constitutional due-process requirements. General jurisdiction permits a defendant to be sued on all claims when its connections with the state are sufficiently substantial. Specific jurisdiction, by contrast, applies only to claims connected to the defendant’s conduct in the forum.

The court found a genuine dispute about whether Alstom itself conducted business in New York and maintained the alleged U.S. headquarters, or whether those activities belonged only to a subsidiary unrelated to the litigation. Because the court had to resolve factual doubts in Elodie’s favor at this stage, and because Alstom’s unsworn statements in its legal briefs were not evidence by themselves, the court concluded that discovery was appropriate.

The court also authorized discovery into whether Alstom was actually Ruston’s successor-in-interest. That issue could determine whether Alstom was the proper defendant or whether other entities might be involved.

Ruling and Next Steps

The court authorized discovery on two subjects: (1) Alstom’s business activities in New York, including the alleged U.S. headquarters, the relationship with the purported New York subsidiary, and any connection between that subsidiary and the litigation; and (2) the relationship between Alstom and Ruston concerning asbestos liabilities.

The court granted Elodie’s request for jurisdictional discovery. It denied Alstom’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to Alstom’s right to renew the motion after discovery. The court ordered the parties to complete discovery by May 4, 2020. By May 11, 2020, Elodie had to state whether she intended to continue the case in New York or consented to dismissal without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. If she continued, Alstom could file a renewed dismissal motion under the schedule set by the court.