Bellman v. NXP Semiconductors United States, Inc.

• Decision Date: 31 March 2017
• Docket Number: No. CIV 16–0113 JB/LAM,CIV 16–0113 JB/LAM
• Citation: 248 F.Supp.3d 1081
• Parties: Randy BELLMAN, Jr.; Jacqueline Bellman; Randy Bellman; Brett Booth ; Brittany Booth; Vicki Goss and Anthony Booth, Plaintiffs, v. NXP SEMICONDUCTORS USA, INC.; Philips Electronics North America Corporation; Philips Semiconductors, Inc. and Rinchem Company, Inc. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

248 F.Supp.3d 1081

Randy BELLMAN, Jr.; Jacqueline Bellman; Randy Bellman; Brett Booth ; Brittany Booth; Vicki Goss and Anthony Booth, Plaintiffs,

v.NXP SEMICONDUCTORS USA, INC.; Philips Electronics North America Corporation; Philips Semiconductors, Inc. and Rinchem Company, Inc.Defendants.

No. CIV 16–0113 JB/LAM

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

Filed March 31, 2017

David J Jaramillo, Jaramillo Law Firm PC, Maria E Touchet, Touchet Law Firm, PC, Albuquerque, NM, Charles Siegel, Waters & Kraus, LLP, Dallas, TX, David Bricker, Waters Kraus & Paul, El Segundo, CA, for Plaintiff.

Dana S Hardy, William P. Slattery, Hinkle, Hensley, Shanor & Martin, L.L.P, Santa Fe, NM, Daniel L. Ring, Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago, IL, Jeremy K. Harrison, Susan Miller Bisong, Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand and Memorandum in Support Thereof, filed March 23, 2016(Doc. 8)("Motion").The Court held a hearing on July 11, 2016.The primary issue is whether the Court should remand the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because the parties are not completely diverse under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).To decide this issue, the Court must determine whether the Plaintiffs joined DefendantRinchem Company, Inc., a non-diverse party and citizen of New Mexico, fraudulently to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction.The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have stated possibly viable claims against Rinchem Co., and thus, that Rinchem Co. is not fraudulently joined.Accordingly, because the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), the Court will grant the Motion and remand the case to the First Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, State of New Mexico.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This action involves allegations concerning serious injuries to PlaintiffsRandy Bellman, Jr., Brett Booth, and Brittany Booth, stemming from their mothers' exposure to chemical products and substances while working at a semiconductor manufacturing plant in Albuquerque, New Mexico.DefendantsNXP Semiconductors USA, Inc., Philips Electronics North America Corp., and Philips Semiconductors, Inc.(the "Signetics Defendants") owned and operated the plant at all times relevant to this action.Rinchem Co. allegedly supplied the chemicals that the Plaintiffs contend caused their injuries.R. Bellman, Jr., Brett Booth, and Brittany Booth bring negligence, products liability, and warranty claims against the Signetics Defendants and Rinchem Co.Their parents—PlaintiffsJacqueline Bellman, Randy Bellman, Vicki Goss, and Anthony Booth—bring derivative claims for damages.

The Court takes its recitation of the facts from the Complaint for Personal Injuries, filed February 2, 2016(Doc. 1–1)(filed January 8, 2016, in Bellman, Jr. v. NXP SemiconductorsUSA Inc., D–101–CV–2016–00045)("Complaint").The Court relies on this factual account for background purposes only, particularly because the Signetics Defendants advance several objections to the Complaint's allegations concerning Rinchem Co.The Court recognizes that the Complaint's factual account is largely the Plaintiffs' version of events.

The Court will provide a brief overview of the parties and then review the Complaint's factual allegations.

1.Overview of the Parties.

R. Bellman, Jr. was born on January 21, 1991.SeeComplaint¶ 14, at 3. J. Bellman and R. Bellman are his parents.SeeComplaint¶ 14, at 3.Brett Booth and Brittany Booth were born on December 29, 1988.SeeComplaint¶¶ 15–16, at 3.Brett Booth and Brittany Booth are siblings, and V. Goss and A. Booth are their parents.SeeComplaint¶¶ 15–16, at 3.

The Signetics Defendants are foreign corporations organized under the laws of Delaware.SeeComplaint¶¶ 8–10, at 2.At all times relevant to this action, the Signetics Defendants owned and operated a semiconductor manufacturing facility in Albuquerque.SeeComplaint¶ 18, at 3.The Signetics Defendants operated the facility as "Signetics" or "Signetics Corporation."Complaint¶ 18, at 3.Rinchem Co. is a domestic corporation that allegedly supplied, transported, formulated, re-formulated, mixed, sold, and/or distributed chemical products and substances to the Signetics Corp. facility and its employees.SeeComplaint¶ 11, at 2;id.¶¶ 22–23, at 5–6.

2.The Complaint's Factual Allegations.

From April 1987 to 2000, J. Bellman worked at Signetics Corp.'s Albuquerque facility manufacturing semiconductor products or components.SeeComplaint¶ 19, at 3. V. Goss worked at the facility in a similar capacity from July 1983 to 1989.SeeComplaint¶ 19, at 3–4.While there, J. Bellman and V. Goss"worked with, in proximity to and/or were exposed to," a wide variety of chemical products and substances¹ that were used in the manufacture of semiconductor products or components.SeeComplaint¶ 20, at 4.Rinchem Co. supplied, and Signetics Corp. prescribed, specified, and approved, these chemicals.SeeComplaint¶¶ 23, 26, at 6.Signetics Corp. monitored some of its employees' exposure to these chemicals; generally monitored its employees' medical, including reproductive, health; tracked the incidence of adverse reproductive outcomes among its employees' offspring; and tracked the potential disease burden to its employees and their families that exposure to these chemicals posed.SeeComplaint¶¶ 28–31, at 6–7.

The chemicals that Signetics Corp. used included known or suspected teratogenic, genotoxic, and/or reproductively toxic chemical products and/or substances.SeeComplaint¶ 33, at 7.Before and during J. Bellman's and V. Goss' employment at Signetics Corp.'s Albuquerque facility, Signetics Corp. had "developed, approved and/or promulgated industrial hygiene policies and procedures to be followed" at the facility.Complaint¶ 37, at 9.These policies "did not include any warnings to workers about the potential for reproductive harm resulting from exposure to the [ ] chemical[s]" that the facility used, Complaint¶ 38, at 9, nor did they include methods, processes, or controls to mitigate excessive exposure to, or standards, regulations, or guidelines to minimize the danger from exposure to, those chemicals, seeComplaint¶¶ 39–41, at 10.Likewise, although Signetics Corp. had training programs for its employees, those programs did not include warnings about reproductive harm that might result from chemical exposure, such as "miscarriage, stillbirth and/or birth defects[ ] among their offspring."Complaint¶¶ 43–44, at 10.Finally, although employees in "wafer processing areas" wore protective equipment, that equipment was designed to protect Signetics Corp.'s semiconductor products/components from particulates and not to protect workers from chemical exposure.Complaint¶ 51, at 11.

During their periods of gestation, R. Bellman, Jr., Brett Booth, and Brittany Booth all sustained injuries in utero that are linked to their mothers' exposure to chemicals at Signetics Corp.SeeComplaint¶¶ 69–70, at 16. R. Bellman, Jr.'s injuries include pheochromocytoma, Von Hippel–Lindau disease, adrenal gland tumors, other tumors, resection of the adrenal glands, and internal injuries.SeeComplaint¶ 76, at 17.Brett Booth's injuries include congenital heart defects, single ventricle, transportation of the great arteries, and cirrhosis of the liver, resulting in numerous heart surgeries and a heart transplant.SeeComplaint¶ 78, at 17.Brittany Booth experiences seizures as a result of her chemical exposure.SeeComplaint¶ 80, at 18.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Plaintiffs commenced this action on January 8, 2016, in the First Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, State of New Mexico.SeeComplaintat 1;Bellman, Jr. v. NXP SemiconductorsUSA Inc., D–101–CV–2016–00045, Register of Actions Activity.The Complaint asserts three counts against the Signetics Defendants for (i) negligence, seeComplaint¶¶ 32–81, at 7–18;(ii) punitive damages, seeComplaint¶¶ 82–93, at 18–23; and (iii) strict liability, seeComplaint¶¶ 104–17, at 27–29.The Complaint also asserts two counts against Rinchem Co. for (i) negligence, seeComplaint¶¶ 94–98, at 24–26; and (ii) breach of express and implied warranties, seeComplaint¶¶ 99–103, at 26. R. Bellman, Jr., Brett Booth, and Brittany Booth seek damages for medical care and treatment, pain and suffering, lost earnings, loss of future earning capacity, loss of future household services, and other damages.SeeComplaint¶¶ 119.a–d, at 29–30. J. Bellman, R. Bellman, V. Goss, and A. Booth bring derivative claims for damages for interference in their parent-child relationships, mental and emotional anguish, medical expenses, and other injuries and damages.SeeComplaint¶¶ 120–123, at 30–31.

On February 16, 2016, the Signetics Defendants removed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1446.SeeNotice of Removalat 1, filedFebruary 16, 2016(Doc. 1)("Notice of Removal").The Signetics Defendants invoke federal diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, arguing that "[c]omplete diversity exists between the properly joined parties to this action."Notice of Removal¶¶ 10–16, at 3–4.The Signetics Defendants say that, although Rinchem Co.—a New Mexico citizen—is also named as a Defendant, its consent to removal is not required, because it was "fraudulently joined."Notice of Removal¶ 3, at 2(citing, among others, Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980, 987–88(10th Cir.2013)).They explain that removal cannot be defeated by fraudulent joinder of a non-diverse resident defendant against whom a plaintiff is unable to establish a cause of action.SeeNotice of Removal¶ 17, at 4(citingDutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d at 988 ).Here, the Signetics Defendants argue, "New Mexico law precludes Plaintiffs from recovering against Rinchem [.]"Notice of Removal¶ 18, at 5.

First, ...