J.Y.C.C. v. Doe Run Res. Corp.

• Decision Date: 11 February 2019
• Docket Number: Case No. 4:15 CV 1704 RWS
• Citation: 403 F.Supp.3d 737
• Parties: J.Y.C.C., et al., Plaintiffs, v. DOE RUN RESOURCES, CORP., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

403 F.Supp.3d 737

J.Y.C.C., et al., Plaintiffs,

v.DOE RUN RESOURCES, CORP., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 4:15 CV 1704 RWS

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

February 11, 2019

Filed July 16, 2019

Andrew V. Tramont, Rodriguez and Tramont, Coral Gables, FL, D. Todd Mathews, Gori and Julian, P.C., Edwardsville, IL, Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Andrew Rothschild, Patrick J. Thornton, Michael J. Hickey, Thomas P. Berra, Jr., Lewis Rice, LLC, Terrence J. O'Toole, St. Louis, MO, Edward L. Dowd, Jr., Jeffrey R. Hoops, Dowd Bennett, LLP, Clayton, MO, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RODNEY W. SIPPEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiffs in this matter are more than sixteen hundred Peruvian children who live near Defendants' lead smelter in La Oroya, Peru. Plaintiffs allege that they were injured after being exposed to toxic lead emissions from the smelter. The corporate defendants are United States companies, who through their Peruvian subsidiary, owned and operated the lead smelting and refining complex. The individual defendants in this matter are the directors and/or officers of the defendant companies.

Defendants move to dismiss this case pursuant to the doctrine of international comity, arguing that the principles of international comity require abstention. In a separate motion for the determination of foreign law, Defendants assert that the law of Peru applies to all aspects of this case. Plaintiffs oppose abstention and argue for the application of Missouri law. Significantly, Defendants are also defendants in a companion case in this Court, A.O.A, et al. v. Rennert, et al., Case No. 4:11 CV 44 CDP.¹ In that case United States District Judge Catherine D. Perry ruled upon similar motions filed by Defendants in that case based on the same facts, legal theories, and claims in the present case. Because these same issues were decided in Judge Perry's case, I will adopt her reasoning and conclusions of law. Under the principles of issue preclusion Defendants are barred from re-litigating these issues in this case. Even if Defendants were not precluded from raising these matters again, I will deny each motion on the merits of their claims. I conclude that abstention based on international comity is not appropriate and that the law of Missouri should apply to this case.

I. Issue Preclusion Bars the Defendants

In the companion case, A.O.A, et al. v. Rennert, et al., Judge Perry already decided that dismissal premised upon the doctrine of international comity is not appropriate and that Missouri law will apply to the claims in this case. 350 F.Supp.3d 818, (E.D. Mo. 2018). The underlying facts of the companion case and this action are the same. Defendants are defendants in both actions and request identical relief – dismissal upon the grounds of international comity and a determination that Peruvian law applies. Defendants present the same legal theories in both cases to support their arguments. Under the principles of issue preclusion, Defendants are barred from re-litigating the same issues in this case that have already been conclusively decided in the companion case.

"The preclusive effect of a federal-court judgment is determined by federal common law." Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 891, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008) (citation omitted). Moreover, "federal law determines the effects under the rules of res judicata of a judgment of a federal court." Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 87 (1982). Issue preclusion prohibits "successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment." New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 748-49, 121 S.Ct. 1808, 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001). Issue preclusion is subject to due process limitations, meaning that the prior judgment lacks a conclusive effect on the current litigant unless the prior litigant had the opportunity to be heard. Richards v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793, 797 n.4, 116 S.Ct. 1761, 135 L.Ed.2d 76 (1996).

Under federal law, issue preclusion applies when: (1) the issue to be precluded is identical to the issue decided in the first action; (2) the first action resulted in final adjudication on the merits; (3) the party being estopped was a party or in privity in the first action; and (4) the party being estopped was given a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the issue in the first action. Irving v. Dormire, 586 F.3d 645, 648 (8th Cir. 2009) ("The preclusion principle embodied in the doctrine of collateral estoppel is based upon the need to conserve judicial resources and prevent inconsistent decisions.")

The present case and the companion case involve the same issues of law. Defendants are the same corporate entities and individuals. The factual underpinnings of both cases are the same, as both cases involve the alleged lead poisoning of hundreds of children from Defendant's metallurgical complex in Peru. The only significant difference between the cases is the identity of the plaintiffs. Defendants raise the same legal theories in both cases, arguing that comity requires dismissal of this action because this Court's ruling will infringe upon Peru's sovereignty. In their motion based on foreign law, Defendants argue that the internal affairs doctrine mandates the application of Peruvian law, that Missouri and Peruvian law are in conflict, and that Peru has a greater interest under the most significant relationship test, thus Peruvian law should apply. Moreover, the parties rely on the same evidence and expert testimony regarding comity and determining foreign law. Judge Perry already rejected these legal theories, reasoning that comity will not infringe upon Peru's sovereignty and this Court could hold defendants liable for their tortious conduct in Missouri. Rennert, 350 F.Supp.3d at 853. Further, the companion case held the internal affairs doctrine is not applicable in this matter and that there is no conflict on the substantive claims between Missouri and Peruvian law. Id. at 836 and 847-48.

Moreover, the companion case actually decided and resulted in a final adjudication of both the comity and foreign law issues. Issue preclusion treats as final only those matters "actually and necessarily decided in a prior suit." Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 139 n.10, 99 S.Ct. 2205, 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979). Issue preclusion may be raised in a motion to dismiss. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Lobrano, 695 F.3d 758, 764 (8th Cir. 2012). Here, the companion case explicitly decided the comity and foreign law issues, ruling that dismissal is not warranted on the basis of comity and that Missouri law will govern the outcome of this case. When an issue is actually decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, "that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation." Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153, 99 S.Ct. 970, 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979), citing Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n. 5, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979). See also John Morrell & Co. v. Local Union 304A of United Food & Commercial Workers, AFL-CIO, 913 F.2d 544, 563 (8th Cir. 1990) ("finality for purpose of appeal under [ 28 U.S.C.] section 1291 is not necessarily the finality that is required for issue preclusion purposes."). Issue preclusion may be invoked when "previous litigation of a particular issue has reached such a stage that a court sees no really good reason for permitting it to be litigated again." In re Nangle, 274 F.3d 481, 485 (8th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation and citations omitted).

Finally, the defendants had a full and fair opportunity to be heard on this issue. The principles of issue preclusion are not rigidly applied, thus the focus when applying the principles of collateral estoppel "will work an injustice on the party against whom estoppel is urged." Oldham v. Pritchett, 599 F.2d 274, 279 (8th Cir.1979). Defendants fully briefed both matters before Judge Perry and had the opportunity to litigate the issue. I note that Defendants moved for a foreign law determination early on in that lawsuit and Judge Perry withheld a determination so that further discovery could be conducted relevant to that issue. See Reid v. Doe Run Res. Corp., 74 F. Supp. 3d 1015, 1026 (E.D. Mo. 2015). Defendants will not be unfairly prejudiced by the preclusive effect of the companion case because as the same parties, Defendants have fully participated in and have had the opportunity to be heard on the issues now before me. See Irving, at 648-649. Because all of the requisite elements for issue preclusion to apply have been met in this case, Defendants are precluded from asserting the same relief and legal theories with respect to international comity and determining foreign law issues they previously raised in the companion case before Judge Perry.

I note that the parties did not the raise the preclusive effect of Judge Perry's rulings in the companion case. However, I may raise the issue sua sponte. "If a court is on notice that it has previously decided the issue presented, the court may dismiss the action sua sponte, even though the defense has not been raised." Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 412, 120 S.Ct. 2304, 147 L.Ed.2d 374 (2000). A court may raise the issue sua sponte because doing so is consistent with policies that underlie the purpose of preclusion: avoiding the burdens of a party unnecessarily litigating an action twice and preserving judicial resources. Although Judge Perry's rulings in the companion case are currently on appeal before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the mere appeal of a ruling does not defeat the preclusive effect of a valid and final judgment. Ross ex rel. Ross v. Board of Educ. of Tp. High School Dist. 211, 486 F.3d 279, 284 (7th Cir. 2007) ("the fact that an appeal was lodged...