PHILADELPHIA – Due to a lack of jurisdiction, a Philadelphia federal judge has dismissed negligence and product liability claims brought against a Texas-based wholesaler that had been sued for injuries connected to packaging for a knife product it sold.
On May 20, U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg dismissed BASE4 from personal injury litigation filed by plaintiffs Gena and Paul Alulis on the grounds that a Pennsylvania court had no legal jurisdiction over it.
Plaintiff Gena Alulis was shopping at Container Store’s location in King of Prussia. While shopping and examining a Magnetic KNIFEstrip, the packaging containing the product allegedly malfunctioned and the KNIFEstrip fell onto her foot, causing a broken toe.
On April 3, 2019, Mrs. Alulis and her husband Paul Alulis filed the instant action in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against both Container Store and BASE4, alleging negligence, strict product liability, breach of warranty, and loss of consortium.
BASE4 removed the case on June 13, 2019 and thereafter filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and, in the alternative, failure to state a claim for breach of warranty.
The focus of the parties’ dispute is whether specific personal jurisdiction exists over BASE4, which claimed that it has no contacts with Pennsylvania, has no locations in Pennsylvania and is not registered to do business in Pennsylvania.
Plaintiffs and co-defendant Container Store responded that BASE4 has sufficient minimum contacts with Pennsylvania because (1) Its website advertises the sale of its products to many national retail chains that are accessible to Pennsylvania residents and (2) Some of the retailers with which BASE4 partners, like Container Store, have Pennsylvania store locations.
“Container Store argues, in the alternative, that, if I find that I lack personal jurisdiction over BASE4, then I should dismiss the entire case because BASE4 is an indispensable party,” Goldberg said.
Goldberg was called to examine whether joinder of the party is necessary under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) and, second, I must analyze whether the party is indispensable to the action under accompanying Rule 19(b).
“BASE4 is not a necessary party under Rule 19(a). It is well-established that not all joint tortfeasors must be joined as defendants in a single lawsuit,” Goldberg said.
Plus, Goldberg concluded that Rule 19(b) factors showed BASE4 was not an indispensable party to the litigation.
These factors are the: (1) Plaintiff’s interest in selecting the forum; (2) Defendant’s interest in avoiding multiple litigation, inconsistent relief or sole liability for a responsibility shared with others; (3) Interest of the absent yet necessary parties; and (4) Interest of courts and the public in complete, consistent and effective settlement of controversies.
“Rule 19(b) Factors do not support BASE4 being an indispensable party in this case. Neither the rights of Container Store will be adversely affected by BASE4’s exclusion from the suit, nor will Container Store lose its ability to recover from BASE4 if Container Store is found liable. And plaintiffs, who are citizens of Pennsylvania, have a significant interest in the forum they have selected,” Goldberg stated.
The plaintiffs are represented by Brad S. Rush of Kovler & Rush, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Michael Salvati of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin in Philadelphia, plus James J. Green of Bardsley Benedict & Cholden in Mount Laurel, N.J.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:19-cv-02564
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com