Wehner v. Syntex Corp.

No. C-85-20383-WAI (N.D. Cal. December 20, 1985)

In an action under § 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act to recover response costs from the corporate parent of a hazardous substance generator, the court holds that the parent corporation is not entitled to summary judgment on jurisdictional grounds. Initially, the court rules that a Missouri federal court's dismissal without prejudice of the parent corporation in a similar lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction does not bar relitigation of plaintiff's claim. The court denies defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the complex issues of law and fact involved in consideration of whether defendant is liable for its subsidiaries' actions under the alter ego doctrine require full discovery and trial.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Murry A. Marks
2025 S. Brentwood, Suite 207, St. Louis MO 63144
(314) 961-2232

Arnold Levin, Laurence S. Berman
Levin and Fishbein
320 Walnut St., Suite 600, Philadelphia PA 19106
(215) 592-1500

Alan Kanner
1718 Locust St., Philadelphia PA 19103
(215) 546-6661

Counsel for Defendants
Robert J. Driscoll
Stinson, Mag & Fizzell
920 Main, P.O. Box 19251, Kansas City MO 64141
(816) 842-8600

Paul S. Brown
Brown, James & Rabbitt, P.C.
705 Olive St., Suite 1100, St. Louis MO 63101
(314) 421-3400

George Weisz
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton
One State Street Plaza, New York NY 10004
(212) 344-0600

John J. Cole
Armstrong, Teasdale, Kramer & Vaughan
611 Olive St, Suite 1900, St. Louis MO 63101
(314) 621-5070

W. Munro Roberts Jr., Ted L. Perryman
Roberts, Perryman & Bomkamp, Inc.
1015 Locust St., Suite 700, St. Louis MO 63101
(314) 421-1850

Joseph M. Spivey III
Hunton & Williams
707 E. Main St., Richmond VA 23212
(804) 788-8200

[16 ELR 20407]

Ingram, J.:

Order

Plaintiffs Raymond F. Wehner, et al., seek response costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., against defendants Syntex Corporation and Syntex (U.S.A.), Inc., for alleged dioxin contamination in the State of Missouri. Defendant Syntex Corporation ("Corporation") moves to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, or, in the alternative, moves for summary judgment.

This Court chooses to treat Defendants' motion as one for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b). As a preliminary matter, this Court notes that Defendant Corporation contends that plaintiffs are estopped from relitigating their claim in this Court since Corporation was dismissed without prejudice from a similar lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Wehner v. Syntex Agribusiness, No. 83-642 [15 ELR 20346] (E.D. Mo. April 1, 1985). Dismissals without prejudice do not constitute a final determination to which collateral estoppel is applied. Brandenfels v. Heckler, 716 F.2d 553, 557 (9th Cir. 1983).

The motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Corporation is a publicly owned life sciences and health care company. Syntex (U.S.A.), Inc., is the wholly owned American subsidiary of Corporation. Syntex (U.S.A) in turn owns the stock of various subsidiaries, including Syntex Agribusiness. Syntex Agribusiness has property and assets in the State of Missouri. Corporation itself owns no property in the State of Missouri. In order for Corporation to be liable for the alleged dioxin contamination in Missouri, the alter ego doctrine must apply. Corporation contends that there is nothing in the record that justifies ignoring the corporate separateness of Corporation and Syntex Agribusiness. The Court has examined the voluminous exhibits of the parties and concludes that the complex issues of law and fact which arise in consideration of the alter ego doctrine are not amenable to summary judgment, but rather should await determination of full discovery and full and complete trial. See Eby v. Reb Realty, Inc., 495 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1974).