English v. Avon Prods., Inc.

2022 NY Slip Op 03571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022) · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department · June 2, 2022 · No. Appeal No. 15655; Case No. 2021-01689

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the denial of Shulton, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that Shulton was subject to specific jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1) because it maintained a New York office that conducted substantial marketing activities and the plaintiff's claims were sufficiently related to those contacts. The court also held that the jurisdictional defense was timely and had not been waived.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department
Writing for the Court
Gische, J.P.; Scarpulla, J.; Shulman, J.; Pitt, J.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
June 2, 2022
Docket number
Appeal No. 15655; Case No. 2021-01689
Procedural posture
Defendant Shulton appealed from an order denying its motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Standard of review
The Appellate Division reviewed whether the pleadings and jurisdictional facts established personal jurisdiction over the nondomiciliary defendant under CPLR 302(a)(1) and constitutional due process requirements.
Precedential value
published opinion
Parties
Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company as Successor-in-Interest to Shulton, Inc. v. Linda English et al.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

personal jurisdictionappellate procedurecivil proceduretorts

Practice areas

civil proceduretortspersonal jurisdiction

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Shulton's appeal was timely.
  2. Whether Shulton waived its personal-jurisdiction defense by moving to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds without simultaneously asserting lack of personal jurisdiction.
  3. Whether New York courts may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Shulton under CPLR 302(a)(1) consistent with due process.
  4. Whether the dismissal of other defendants required dismissal of Shulton for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Holdings

  1. Shulton did not waive its personal-jurisdiction defense because it raised the defense in its first responsive pleading, and its separate forum non conveniens motion did not waive the defense.
  2. New York had specific personal jurisdiction over Shulton under CPLR 302(a)(1) because Shulton purposefully transacted business in New York through its own office and the claims had an articulable nexus to those New York contacts.
  3. Exercising specific personal jurisdiction over Shulton comported with due process.

Key quotations

CPLR 302(a)(1) requires a two-pronged jurisdictional inquiry. ([*2])
The primary focus of a specific jurisdiction inquiry is the defendant's relationship to the forum state ([*3])
Shulton's activities and contacts with New York and the allegedly hazardous talcum powder used by English are sufficient to support an assertion of specific jurisdiction over Shulton. ([*4])

Factual background

Linda English, a Texas resident and former flight attendant, alleged that she developed peritoneal mesothelioma from using Shulton's asbestos-containing Desert Flower talcum powder. From 1966 to 1984, she regularly flew into New York and used the product during layovers, although there was no claim that the product used in New York was purchased there. Shulton was incorporated and headquartered in New Jersey, but maintained a New York office that operated substantial marketing activities for its cosmetics and talcum divisions during at least part of the period in which English used the product.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied Shulton's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the order without costs.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…