Case Law In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig.

In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig.

Document Cited Authorities (124) Cited in (121) Related

894 F.Supp.2d 819

In re CHINESE MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

MDL No. 2047.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 2012.

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   ¦
...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Start a free trial
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana – 2017
In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig.
"...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 ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana – 2020
JMF Med., LLC v. Team Health, LLC
"...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..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama – 2014
Johnson v. Chrysler Can. Inc.
"...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..."
Document | Tennessee Supreme Court – 2013
State v. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Co.
"...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..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana – 2017
In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig.
"...and objects, and the breaking down of appliances and electrical devices in their homes. See In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig., 894 F. Supp. 2d 819, 829-30 (E.D. La. 2012), aff'd, 742 F.3d 576 (5th Cir. 2014). Many of these homeowners also began to complain of various ph..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana – 2017
In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig.
"...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 ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana – 2020
JMF Med., LLC v. Team Health, LLC
"...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..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama – 2014
Johnson v. Chrysler Can. Inc.
"...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..."
Document | Tennessee Supreme Court – 2013
State v. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Co.
"...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..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana – 2017
In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig.
"...and objects, and the breaking down of appliances and electrical devices in their homes. See In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig., 894 F. Supp. 2d 819, 829-30 (E.D. La. 2012), aff'd, 742 F.3d 576 (5th Cir. 2014). Many of these homeowners also began to complain of various ph..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Used by the world's leading companies

Herbert Smith Freehills Logo Princeton University Logo University of Oxford Logo K2 Intelligence LLC Logo Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Logo Kobre & Kim LLP Logo Wiley Logo ABA Logo Perez Lorca Logo Fisher Phillips Logo
vLex Footer Logo
© 2025 vLex. All rights reserved.