In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig.

Decision Date04 September 2012
Docket NumberMDL No. 2047.
Citation894 F.Supp.2d 819
PartiesIn re CHINESE MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Phillip A. Wittmann, Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC, Judy Y. Barrasso, Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Homebuilders and Installers Steering Committee and Insurer Steering Committee.

ORDER & REASONS

ELDON E. FALLON, District Judge.

Before the Court are the following four motions: (1) Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd's (“TG”) Renewed Motion to Vacate the Default Judgment and Dismiss the Complaint in Germano v. Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd., Case No. 09–6687 (R. Doc. 13490); (2) TG's Renewed Motion Pursuant to Rules 55(c) and 12(b)(2) to Vacate the Entry of Default and Dismiss This Action in The Mitchell Co., Inc. v. Knauf Gips KG, Case No. 09–4115 (R. Doc. 13566); (3) TG and Taian Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd.'s (“TTP”)(collectively “Taishan” or “Taishan Entities”) Motion Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) to Dismiss the Complaint in Gross v. Knauf Gips KG, Case No. 09–6690 (R. Doc. 13590); and (4) TG and TTP's Motion Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) to Dismiss the Complaint in Wiltz v. Beijing New Building Materials Public Ltd., Co., Case No. 10–361 (R. Doc. 13591). Extensive discovery was conducted in preparation for the motions, followed by lengthy briefing and an evidentiary hearing with oral arguments. The Court has now reviewed the parties' arguments, the relevant evidence, and the applicable law, and it is ready to rule.

+-------------------+
                ¦TABLE OF CONTENTS  ¦
                +-------------------¦
                ¦                   ¦
                +-------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------+
                ¦I.¦BACKGROUND                  ¦829¦
                +-----------------------------------+
                
+------------------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦A.¦The MDL Litigation             ¦829 ¦
                +--+--+-------------------------------+----¦
                ¦  ¦B.¦The Knauf Entities             ¦830 ¦
                +--+--+-------------------------------+----¦
                ¦  ¦C.¦The Taishan Entities           ¦831 ¦
                +------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦                                                               ¦       ¦
                +----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦II. ¦TG'S RENEWED MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT & DISMISS   ¦834    ¦
                ¦    ¦THE COMPLAINT IN GERMANO                                       ¦       ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A. ¦Present Motion & Summary of the Parties' Positions¦834   ¦
                +------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦TG's Motion                                           ¦834   ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦The PS's Responses in Opposition                      ¦835   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Response to the Motion                            ¦835   ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Global Memorandum                                 ¦835   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦3.  ¦TG's Reply                                            ¦835   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦B. ¦Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction¦836   ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Standard of Review                                    ¦836   ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Applicable Law                                        ¦836   ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦3.  ¦Personal Jurisdiction Over a Foreign Defendant        ¦837   ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦4.  ¦Virginia's Long–Arm Statute                         ¦837   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦  ¦ ¦a.  ¦Subsection (A)(2)-Contracting to Supply Services                            ¦839 ¦
                +---+--+-+----+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦  ¦ ¦b.  ¦Subsections (A)(4) & (A)(5)-Tortious Injury & Breach of  Warranty  ¦840 ¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦5.  ¦Due Process Clause                                    ¦841   ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦6.  ¦Minimum Contacts                                      ¦841   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦  ¦ ¦a.  ¦Specific Personal Jurisdiction                                        ¦842  ¦
                +--+--+-+----+----------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦  ¦ ¦b.  ¦Supreme Court Jurisprudence on Specific Personal  Jurisdiction       ¦842  ¦
                +--+--+-+----+----------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦  ¦ ¦c.  ¦Effect of J. McIntyre on the Specific Personal Jurisdiction Analysis  ¦846  ¦
                +--+--+-+----+----------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦  ¦ ¦d.  ¦Fifth Circuit's Interpretation of Specific Personal Jurisdiction      ¦848  ¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦7.  ¦TG's Minimum Contacts in Germano                      ¦849   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦  ¦ ¦a.  ¦TG's Lack of Physical Contacts in Virginia                                             ¦849  ¦
                +--+--+-+----+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦  ¦ ¦b.  ¦TG's Nationwide Contacts                                                               ¦849  ¦
                +--+--+-+----+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦  ¦ ¦c.  ¦TG's Virginia Contacts                                                                 ¦851  ¦
                +--+--+-+----+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦  ¦ ¦d.  ¦TG has Sufficient Minimum Contacts with Virginia for  Specific Personal Jurisdiction  ¦854  ¦
                ¦  ¦  ¦ ¦    ¦                                                                                       ¦     ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦8.  ¦Cause of Action Arises From Forum Minimum Contacts    ¦857   ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦9.  ¦Fair Play & Substantial Justice                   ¦858   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦  ¦ ¦a.  ¦Burden on TG                                                            ¦859 ¦
                +---+--+-+----+------------------------------------------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦  ¦ ¦b.  ¦Virginia's Interest                                                     ¦859 ¦
                +---+--+-+----+------------------------------------------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦  ¦ ¦c.  ¦Plaintiffs' Interest                                                    ¦860 ¦
                +---+--+-+----+------------------------------------------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦  ¦ ¦d.  ¦Judicial System's Interest                                              ¦860 ¦
                +---+--+-+----+------------------------------------------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦  ¦ ¦e.  ¦States' Shared Interest                                                 ¦860 ¦
                +---+--+-+----+------------------------------------------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦  ¦ ¦f.  ¦The Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction Over TG is Fair & Reasonable  ¦860 ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦10.  ¦Imputation of Contacts Between TG & TTP          ¦861   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦C. ¦The Court's Ruling on Vacating the Default Judgment¦862   ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Applicable Law                                        ¦862   ¦
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
85 cases
  • In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • April 21, 2017
    ...and objects, and the breaking down of appliances and electrical devices in their homes. In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prod. Liab. Litig., 894 F. Supp. 2d 819, 829 (E.D. La. 2012), aff'd, 742 F. 3d 576 (5th Cir. 2014). Many of these homeowners also began to complain of various physical ......
  • JMF Med., LLC v. Team Health, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana
    • September 29, 2020
    ...that they "need only present a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction." (Id. at 7 (citing In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig. , 894 F.Supp.2d 819, 836 (E.D. La. 2012) )). "Based on the Complaint and written materials supplied by the parties," Plaintiffs suggest that th......
  • Johnson v. Chrysler Can. Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • June 5, 2014
    ...Breyer's opinion purports to rely on existing precedent to reach its conclusion.”); In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Products Liab. Litig., 894 F.Supp.2d 819, 849 (E.D.La.2012) (Fallon, J.) aff'd, 742 F.3d 576 (5th Cir.2014) (“Justice Breyer's concurrence, the governing decision, expressl......
  • State v. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Co.
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • March 28, 2013
    ...v. Cargotec USA, Inc., 2011 WL 6291812, at *4 (“McIntyre has little to no precedential value.”); In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig., 894 F.Supp.2d 819, 848 (E.D.La.2012) (“Justice Breyer's concurrence provides a clear directive to the Court to apply existing Supreme Cour......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT