Common Pleas Court Lacks Jurisdiction in Sugar Pesticide Lawsuit, Superior Court Affirms
The Superior Court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the defendants were connected to Pennsylvania via a "stream of commerce."
July 16, 2020 at 03:24 PM
3 minute read
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has affirmed a ruling determining that the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas did not have jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit filed by Dominican farm workers against sugar companies over their exposure to toxic pesticides.
A three-judge panel consisting of Judges Mary Jane Bowes, Jacqueline Shogan and Dan Pellegrini upheld a holding that the Philadelphia trial court had no jurisdiction over the defendants—all foreign or out-of-state corporations.
Plaintiffs Juan and Juana Fulano filed their lawsuit on behalf of other agricultural workers against defendants Fanjul Corp., Drexel Chemical Co., Inicia Ltd. and UPL Ltd., alleging that they were exposed to toxic pesticides and herbicides while working as fumigators in the sugar cane industry in the Dominican Republic, according to Pellegrini's opinion.
The plaintiffs claimed they suffered eye and skin irritation, headaches, difficulty breathing, chest and stomach pain, nausea and chronic coughing as a result of the exposure.
According to Pellegrini, they argued that the case could be heard in Philadelphia because both Fanjul and Inicia controlled "sugar empires" through their subsidiaries that produce and distribute sugar throughout the United States, including Pennsylvania. As for the pesticide producers, the Fulanos argued that Drexel registers and sells its products in Pennsylvania, while UPL has an in-state alter ego subsidiary, United Phosphorus Inc. (UPI), based in Montgomery County.
All of the defendants claimed they had insufficient contacts in state for the plaintiffs' claims to survive.
The Superior Court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the Fanjul and Inicia were connected to Pennsylvania via a "stream of commerce."
In explaining the rejection regarding Inicia, Pellegrini said the plaintiffs provided "little argument about specific personal jurisdiction, arguing merely that 'the facts supported application of the stream of commerce theory to establish personal jurisdiction over Inicia.' As we explained in relation [to] Fanjul, this is a misapplication of the 'stream of commerce' theory of specific personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs are Dominican residents who allege that they were injured in the Dominican Republic; they do not allege that Inicia produced a product that was placed into the stream of commerce that ultimately injured them in Pennsylvania."
As for Drexel, based in Memphis, and UPL, based in Mumbai, Pellegrini noted that neither of those companies is incorporated or has places of business in Pennsylvania.
Robert Vance Jr. represents the plaintiffs. In an email he said, "Plaintiffs are disappointed in the decision of the Superior Court, but will explore all available options in all available fora to obtain compensation for the injuries they suffered and continue to suffer caused by the defendants."
Matthew Goldberg of DLA Piper, who represents Inicia, praised the ruling. "The Superior Court handed down a thoughtful opinion and sent a clear message that this case does not belong in Pennsylvania," he said in an email.
David Helwig of Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly represents Drexel and declined to comment.
Edward Butkovitz of Kleinbard represents UPL and Matthew Taylor of Duane Morris represents Fanjul. Both did not respond to requests for comment.
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250