Del Castillo v. Pmi Holdings N. Am. Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-CV-03435 |
| Parties | JAVIER ALVAREZ DEL CASTILLO, et al, Plaintiffs, v. PMI HOLDINGS NORTH AMERICA INC, et al, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
This case arises out of an explosion at a natural gas refinery in Reynosa, Mexico that occurred in September 2012. Plaintiffs are refinery employees who were injured in the blast and the family members of employees who were killed. Defendants are variously the owners, operators, or suppliers of the plant.
Before the Court are the motions to dismiss filed by the following defendants: Rotork Controls Inc. ("Rotork USA") (Doc. No. 131); Kinder Morgan Gas Natural de Mexico, Kinder Morgan Inc., Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P., Kinder Morgan Management LLC, El Paso Pipeline Partners, LP, El Paso Pipeline GP Company, LLC, Tennessee Pipeline Inc., and Tennessee Pipeline Partners, Inc. (collectively, "Kinder Morgan") (Doc. No. 137); P.M.I. Comercio Internacional, S.A. de C.V. ("PMI Comercio"), P.M.I. Holdings North America, Inc. ("PMI Holdings"), and PEMEX Procurement International, Inc. ("PPI") (Doc. No. 135); Emerson Electric Co. ("Emerson Electric") (Doc. No. 138); Draeger Safety Inc. ("Draeger") (Doc. No. 139); Honeywell Analytics Inc. ("Honeywell") (Doc. Nos. 141-142); and, Petróleos Mexicanos ("Pemex"), Pemex Exploración y Producción ("PEP"), and Pemex Transformación Industrial, as successor-in-interest to Pemex Refinación ("PXR"), Pemex Gas y Petroqímica Básica ("PGPB"), and Pemex Petroqímica ("PPQ") (collectively, "Pemex Defendants") (Doc. No. 160).
For the reasons set out in this Order, the Court has determined that all of Plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed with prejudice except for the negligence and gross negligence claims against Defendant Kinder Morgan.
On September 18, 2012, a large explosion at a natural gas refinery in Reynosa, Mexico fatally injured at least 22 workers and seriously injured 15 more. The Reynosa plant is owned by Defendant PEP, which is a subsidiary of Defendant Pemex. Plaintiffs allege that the explosion and resulting injuries were caused by Defendants' negligence in the design, construction, and operation of the plant, the plant's safety measures, and the natural gas pipelines.
Plaintiffs originally filed their First Amended Petition in Texas state court in September 2014. Plaintiffs later filed in state court a Second Amended Petition. In December 2014, the case was removed to federal court. After removal, a number of Defendants filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On June 22, 2015, the Court granted, without prejudice, the Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Petition. See Mem. & Order, June 22, 2015 (Doc. No. 61). On July 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint, which prompted the filing of new Rule 12(b)(6) motions by Defendants. On October 22, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file their Fourth Amended Complaint (the "Complaint") (Doc. No. 130). In response to the Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants filed the motions to dismiss that are now before the Court.
Defendants move for dismissal on several different grounds: some for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1); some for lack of personal jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2); and all for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Many of the Rule 12(b)(6) grounds for dismissal are applicable to all Defendants. The Court will address first those arguments that would dispose of a claim as to all Defendants and will then turn to the individual motions to dismiss.
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court to hear the case. "Under Rule 12(b)(1), a claim is properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the claim." In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Prods. Liab. Litig., 668 F.3d 281, 286 (5th Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted). A finding that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction may be based upon: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts. Barrera -Montenegro v. United States, 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir. 1996). The burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction is on the party asserting jurisdiction. Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001).
Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. When a nonresident defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating facts sufficient to support jurisdiction. Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185, 1192 (5th Cir. 1985). "The court may determine the jurisdictional issue by receivingaffidavits, interrogatories, depositions, oral testimony, or any combination of the recognized methods of discovery." Id. The court "must resolve all undisputed facts submitted by the plaintiff, as well as all facts contested in the affidavits, in favor of jurisdiction." Luv N' care, Ltd. v. Insta-Mix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465, 469 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted).
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows dismissal if a plaintiff fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6) must be read in conjunction with Rule 8(a), which requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Rule 8 "does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
To withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a "complaint must allege 'more than labels and conclusions,'" and "'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Norris v. Hearst Trust, 500 F.3d 454, 464 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A "complaint 'does not need detailed factual allegations,' but must provide the plaintiff's grounds for entitlement to relief—including factual allegations that when assumed to be true 'raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'" Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007) (footnote omitted) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
Plaintiffs allege that various Defendants breached "the implied warranty of merchantability with regard to the sale, service, and maintenance of the products they sold to the plant," including "plant operation systems" and "monitoring or metering equipment." Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 154. To recover on a breach of warranty claim in Texas, "the buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy." TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 2.607(c)(1). The "'[f]ailure to notify the seller of the breach, thereby allowing the seller an opportunity to cure, bars recovery on the basis of breach of warranty.'" McKay v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 751 F.3d 694, 705 (5th Cir. 2014) (). Defendants argue that the breach of warranty claim must be dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to give them the required pre-suit notice. Plaintiffs concede that they failed to provide notice of the alleged breach. Pls.' Resp. Mot. Dismiss 17 (Doc. No. 145); Pls.' Resp. Mot. Dismiss 8 (Doc. No. 148). They contend, however, that the notice requirement applies only to the buyer of the defective product and that, as "non-purchasing bystanders," Plaintiffs had no obligation to provide pre-suit notice. Id.
Plaintiffs' interpretation of the notice requirement is not correct. Plaintiffs rely exclusively on a 1979 Texas Court of Appeals decision, Vintage Homes, Inc. v. Coldiron, for the proposition that the notice requirement of § 2.607 does not apply to a non-buyer. In Vintage Homes, the court interpreted § 2.607 to "appl[y] only as between a buyer and his immediate seller." 585 S.W.2d 886, 888 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979). However, Vintage Homes is no longer good law. As the Fifth Circuit has observed:
We note that [Vintage Homes] was based on a commentary which discussed a version of section 2.607 that differed in an important respect from the version enacted into Texas law as Tex. Bus. & Com.Code § 2.607(c)(1). The version discussed by that commentary required that the buyer give note to "his" seller, while the Texas version of section 2.607(c)(1) requires that notice be given to "the" seller.
McKay, 751 F.3d at 707 (). Both Texas and federal court authority support the view that "beneficiaries of a product who are not the buyers still have a duty to notify the seller of problems with the product." Timoschuk v....
To continue reading
Request your trial