Pitcher v. Union Carbide Corporation

Background

John and Carolyn Pitcher alleged that they were injured by exposure to asbestos in products made or sold by the defendants and their predecessors. They asked to amend their complaint to add Charles B. Chrystal Company, Inc., Chattem, Inc., Emerson Electric Co., Emerson Final Control US Holding LLC, and Spirax Sarco, Inc. The motion was filed on June 8, 2023, about three months after the deadline in the court’s case-management order.

Only Chattem opposed the motion. Chattem argued that the plaintiffs had delayed without good cause and that adding Chattem would be futile because the court lacked personal jurisdiction, meaning legal authority over Chattem.

Undue Delay

The court rejected Chattem’s delay argument. It explained that delay alone generally does not justify denying amendment unless there is bad faith or undue prejudice. The court considered the timing of a dispute over the length of John Pitcher’s deposition and the plaintiffs’ contention that the deposition revealed his use of Gold Bond powder in New York during the period when Chattem owned the product line. The court found that Chattem had not shown bad faith or explained how it would suffer undue prejudice while discovery was still ongoing.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court also rejected Chattem’s argument that amendment would be futile for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs relied on New York’s long-arm statute, which can permit jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant that conducts business in New York when the claim is connected to that business.

The court found that the proposed amended complaint alleged that Chattem sold Gold Bond products in New York and that John Pitcher used Gold Bond powder in New York during the relevant period. It concluded that the alleged asbestos exposure in New York was sufficiently related to Chattem’s sales and advertising of those products there. At this stage, the plaintiffs needed only to make an initial showing that jurisdiction existed, and the court found that they had done so.

The court separately considered constitutional due process requirements. It concluded that Chattem’s sales and advertising in New York showed that Chattem deliberately conducted business there and could reasonably anticipate being sued in New York over disputes related to those products. The court also found that Chattem had not shown that exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable. New York had an interest in regulating products sold there, the plaintiffs had an interest in obtaining complete relief, and keeping the case in the same court promoted efficiency.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the plaintiffs’ motion to amend. It directed the plaintiffs to file the amended complaint promptly and directed the defendants to respond no later than three weeks after the filing date. The ruling addressed amendment and personal jurisdiction; it did not decide whether the asbestos allegations were legally or factually proven.