Adams v. Adient U.S. LLC

CHARLES E. ADAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ADIENT U.S. LLC; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; HOOVER UNIVERSAL, INC.; MANUFACTURERS INDUSTRIAL GROUP, L.L.C.; JOHN ZARDIS; ANDRE GIST; MANUFACTURERS INDUSTRIAL GROUP, LLC; MIG STEEL FABRICATION, LLC F/K/A MIG CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC; MIG ENTERPRISES, LLC; FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS A THROUGH Z, Defendants.

MANUFACTURERS INDUSTRIAL GROUP L.L.C., JOHN ZARIDS, and ANDRE GIST, Cross-Plaintiffs, v. ADIENT U.S. LLC and JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Cross-Defendants, MANUFACTURERS INDUSTRIAL GROUP, L.L.C., JOHN ZARDIS, and ANDRE GIST, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. HOOVER UNIVERSAL, INC., Third-Party Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-01197-JTF-jay

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division

September 12, 2022

ORDER DENYING JCI DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IN PART, GRANTING JCI DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AS TO PLAINTIFFS' NEGLIGENCE PER SE CLAIMS AND AS TO PLAINTIFFS WHO SERVE AS BUSINESS ENTITIES IN COUNT 2 AND COUNT 3 OF THE NEGLIGENT AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CLAIMS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO AMEND THEIR COMPLAINT

JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendants Hoover Universal, Inc., Adient U.S LLC, and Johnson Controls, Inc.'s (collectively, the “JCI Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (the “Motion”), filed on September 8, 2020. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiffs Charles E. Adams et al (“Plaintiffs”) filed Plaintiffs' Response to JCI Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on February 8, 2021. (ECF No. 33.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs filed an Alternative Motion to Amend their Complaint along with a Memorandum in Support on March 3, 2021. (ECF Nos. 38 &amp 38-1.) JCI Defendants' Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was filed on March 8 2021. (ECF No. 39.) JCI Defendants subsequently filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Alternative Motion to Amend their Second Amended Complaint on March 17, 2021. (ECF No. 40.) For the following reasons, JCI Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. JCI Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' Negligence Per Se Claims, as well as Plaintiffs who serve as business entities in Count 2 and Count 3 of the Negligent and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claims. Furthermore, Plaintiffs' Alternative Motion to Amend their Complaint is DENIED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case arises out of injuries allegedly sustained from JCI Defendants' past and continuing improper storage, discharge release, and inadequate remediation of toxic chemicals as a result of chemical releases and related conduct at an industrial facility located in Lexington, Tennessee (the “Industrial Site”). (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint alleges the Manufacturers Industrial Group LLC^[1] (the “MIG”) owned or operated the Industrial Site between December 2006 and October 2013. Defendants allegedly used and buried toxic chemicals on the Industrial Site while manufacturing auto-parts. (Id.) The toxic chemicals include (1) trichloroethylene (“TCE”); (2) tetrachloroethylene (“PCE”); cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, and 1,1-dichloroethylene. (Id.) The alleged contamination resulted in a toxic plume in the groundwater under the surrounding neighborhood that grew from 0.26 miles in 2009 to 0.44 miles in 2012. (Id.) Plaintiffs consist of over 400 individuals and several entities who own property or live near the Industrial Site and allegedly have been negatively affected by the contamination. (Id.) JCI Defendants aver that Plaintiffs admit they cannot prove physical injury from the contamination and have not identified any physical injury in required disclosures. (ECF No. 6-3, 5.) However, Plaintiffs indicate that damages for mental anguish and anxiety are continuing and cannot be quantified at this time. (Id.)

Essentially, Plaintiffs allege in the Second Amended Complaint that their water is unfit for drinking and that chemicals are vaporizing and entering the airspace where they may be inhaled. (ECF No. 6-2, ¶¶ 44-46.) The Second Amended Complaint acknowledges that Adient voluntarily reported the released solvents to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (“TDEC”) in 2007, shortly after they were discovered at the end of 2006, and promptly retained Weston Solutions, Inc. (“Weston”) to investigate the matter and remediate. (Id.; ¶¶ 25-32.) Adient voluntarily entered the Industrial Site into the State voluntary cleanup program in 2007 once the contamination was discovered. (ECF No. 6-4, Exhibit C.) The Second Amended Complaint further alleges that Weston's investigation through 2012 found that the groundwater was contaminated with TCE, PCE, and TCE degradation products. (ECF No. 6-2, ¶ 33; See Comprehensive Remedial Investigation and Interim Response Report, Johnson Controls Manufacturing Plant (July 2014)).

The remediation conducted on behalf of Adient was approved by TDEC and the Site remains under TDEC oversight.^[2] (ECF No. 6-1, 11; ECF No. 6-2, ¶¶ 26-28, 43.) On August 26, 2018, TDEC concluded that the “groundwater plume, along with all pathways of concern (surface soil, surface water, sediments, and vapor intrusion) has been fully evaluated and that based on current data, none of these pathways pose an unacceptable risk to any known receptors.” (ECF No. 6-5, Exhibit D.) Moreover, at TDEC's request, the Tennessee Department of Health (“TDH”) conducted a Health Consultation (“TDH Report”) on May 2, 2011, concluding that the chemicals “PCE and TCE in addition to TCE's breakdown will not harm the health of residents in homes downgradient from the MIG facility or the plant employees.”^[3] (Id.) In addition, TDEC approved an approach that provides for the continued reduction of the remaining contamination through natural processes. (Id.) TDEC indicated that continued periodic monitoring and well sampling is a crucial part of any monitored natural attenuation remedy. (Id.) TDEC stated that “when site related contaminants have been detected in residential indoor air, the same contaminants were not detected in co-located sub slab or ambient air samples, indicating that a non-site related source likely contributed to the indoor air sample detections.” (Id.)

Plaintiffs' claims in the Second Amended Complaint are: Count 1-negligence, gross negligence, and negligence per se; Count 2-intentional infliction of emotional distress; Count 3-negligent infliction of emotional distress; Count 4-trespass; Count 5-public nuisance; Count 6-private nuisance; Count 7-breach of duty to warn; Count 8-battery; Count 9-assault; Count 10-common law strict liability; Count 11-punitive damages; Count 12-injunctive relief and Count 13-successor liability and miscellaneous claims. (ECF No. 33.)

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 2, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint in the Circuit Court of Henderson County, Tennessee. (ECF No. 1-1, 2.) On September 14, 2018, Adient and JCI removed this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. (Id. at 60.) On April 11, 2019, the district court entered an Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, finding diversity and federal question jurisdiction lacking. See Adams v. Adient US, LLC, No. 1:18-cv-01179-JDB-egb, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62277 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 11, 2019). Following remand, on January 2, 2020, the Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of the MIG Defendants, thereby dismissing the claims against them.^[4] (ECF No. 1-4, 110.)

Following a grant of leave to file, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint in the Circuit Court on August 24, 2020, against Adient, JCI, Hoover, the MIG Defendants, and Fictitious Defendants A through Z. (ECF No. 1-12, 60-62, 75, 82.) Therein, Plaintiffs assert 13 claims and seek $500 million in compensatory damages. (ECF Nos. 1-12, 101-04 & 1-13, 1-10.) On September 1, 2020, Hoover filed a Notice of Removal, to which the remaining Defendants consented. (ECF Nos. 1, 6 & 1-15.) The Notice asserts that this Court has traditional diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. (ECF No. 1, 6-7.) On September 30, 2021, the Court entered an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, because the Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act which no exceptions thereto apply. (ECF No. 52.)

LEGAL STANDARD

JCI Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A complaint may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P 12(b)(6). “The purpose of Rule 12(b)(6) is to allow a defendant to test whether, as a matter of law, the plaintiff is entitled to legal relief even if everything is alleged in the complaint is true.” Mayer v. Mylod, 988 F.2d 635, 638 (6th Cir. 1993) (citing Nishiyama v. Dickson Cnty., Tenn., 814 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir. 1987)).

When evaluating a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) the Court must determine whether the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. To put it plainly, although the complaint need not contain detailed...