HARRISBURG – The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has upheld a prior ruling that the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas was not a proper venue for litigation filed by 41 farm workers from the Dominican Republic, who alleged in they were exposed to poisonous pesticides and herbicides in their plantation work.
On July 10, a trio of Superior Court judges Mary Jane Bowes, Jacqueline Shogan and Dan Pellegrini maintained that foreign corporations, such as the defendants in this action, were not subject to the jurisdiction of the case’s trial court in Philadelphia.
The plaintiffs, residing in the poverty-stricken provinces of La Romana, San Pedro de Macoris, El Seibo, Hato Mayor, San Cristobal and La Altagracia, all serve as plantation workers assisting in the cultivation and harvesting of sugarcane, a prime industry in the Dominican Republic.
Such harvesting is controlled by a trio of companies: Central Romana Corporation, Consorcio Azucarero de Empresas Industriales and Consorcio Azucarero Central. The corporate parents of both Central Romana and CAEI – Fanjul Corporation and Inicia Group – were listed as defendants, in addition to other companies.
In their fumigation work on plantations, the plaintiffs said they were routinely exposed to “toxic pesticides, herbicides, insecticides and other chemical products…via spray, drift or direct contact with treated crops or soil, or from inadequate personal protective equipment.”
Furthermore, the plaintiffs said such risk was transferred to their families when they would return home after working in such conditions and to individuals residing in the vicinity of agricultural lands and plantations, due to chemical drift.
“Humans can be harmed by pesticides in two ways. First, pesticide poisoning occurs when pesticides harm internal organs. Second, pesticide-related injuries are caused by pesticides that are external irritants. The adverse health effects of pesticide exposure range from short-term impacts such as headaches, fever and nausea, to long-term impacts such as cancer, reproductive harm and endocrine disruption,” the suit stated.
The plaintiffs attempted to tie Fanjul and Inicia to the sale of their products throughout the United States, or the “stream of commerce”, as well as pesticide manufacturer UPL Limited’s Pennsylvania-based subsidiary, United Phosphorus, Inc. in Montgomery County – while all of the defendants replied that there were insufficient contacts to confer jurisdiction upon them in a Pennsylvania court.
“Plaintiffs likewise provide 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 Fanjul, this is a misapplication of the ‘stream of commerce’ theory of specific personal jurisdiction,” Superior Court of Pennsylvania Judge Dan Pellegrini said.
“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. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claim as to Inicia fails.”
With Drexel Chemical Company being headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee and UPL being headquartered in Mumbai, India, Pellegrini indicated that neither corporation has any tie to or should be subject to legal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania.
“Drexel has no plants or offices in Pennsylvania; its in-state physical presence is limited to a leased warehouse in Bucks County. Nor does Drexel have any employees or officers in state. Its closest employee is its Northeast sales representative, who is based in New Jersey. Drexel also does not directly advertise or market its products in Pennsylvania. Accordingly, the trial court correctly found that Drexel’s contacts with Pennsylvania were insufficient to constitutionally allow general personal jurisdiction,” Pellegrini stated.
There were a number of factors that weigh in favor of UPI not being an alter ego of UPL, namely, (1) UPL owns none of UPI’s stock; (2) No common officers or directors between the two entities; (3) No common use of employees; and (4) No interchange of managerial or supervisory personnel. All of this is in addition to neither entity sharing bank accounts; maintaining separate financial and accounting records; having separate employees; and UPI being adequately and independently financed.”
Pellegrini noted that the plaintiffs “do not contest any of these facts, all of which strongly weigh in favor of finding that UPL and UPI exercise a typical parent-subsidiary relationship rather than UPI being the mere instrumentality of UPL.”
“Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not err in finding that plaintiffs could not impute UPI’s general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania to UPL through an alter ego theory of jurisdiction,” Pellegrini concluded.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 3291 EDA 2018
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 180102241
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com