LINDA HUFF VS. CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY (L-2818-17, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3655-17T3
LINDA HUFF and JAMES HUFF,
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS
COMPANY and IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES, INC.,
BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA,
INC., COLGATE-PALMOLIVE,
INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
WHITTAKER CLARK & DANIELS,
INC., UNILEVER UNITED STATES,
INC., and ARKEMA, INC.,
Defendants.
Argued October 17, 2018 – Decided September 11, 2019
Before Judges Fuentes, Accurso and Vernoia.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-2818-17.
John C. McMeekin, II, argued the cause for appellants
(Rawle & Henderson, LLP, attorneys; John C.
McMeekin, II, on the briefs).
Robert E. Lytle argued the cause for respondents
(Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader, PC, and
Simon Greenstone Panatier, PC, attorneys; Robert E.
Lytle, of counsel and on the brief; Leah Kagan, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
The question we thought was presented on this appeal, here on leave
granted, is the constitutionality of a New Jersey court's assertion of personal
jurisdiction over a foreign defendant without minimum contacts to our State
based on the jurisdictional contacts of its predecessors under a products line
theory. Specifically, we granted leave to determine whether maintenance of this
suit in New Jersey by the estate of an Ohio resident, Linda Huff, against two
Delaware corporations, Imerys Talc America, Inc. and Cyprus Amax Minerals
Company, both with principal places of business in other states, based on
injuries the decedent allegedly suffered as a result of talc imported into New
Jersey, processed in a plant in South Plainfield and sold by companies alleged
to be defendants' predecessors to Colgate-Palmolive, Inc., which incorporated it
into its Cashmere Bouquet body powder, offends due process.
A-3655-17T3
2
After briefing and argument, however, Imerys filed for bankruptcy
protection. Because the factual record as to Cyprus Amax is too poorly
developed to justify our reaching this important constitutional question in this
case, we vacate our interlocutory order as improvidently granted and dismiss the
appeal.
Linda Huff and her husband James filed a complaint in the Law Division
against Cyprus Amax, Imerys, Colgate-Palmolive and Johnson & Johnson,
among others, alleging her exposure to asbestos through her use of Cashmere
Bouquet talcum powder and Johnson's Baby Powder caused the pleural
mesothelioma to which she succumbed after suit was filed. Specifically,
plaintiffs alleged Huff was exposed to asbestos through her and her mother's
regular use of Cashmere Bouquet from approximately 1956 to 1970, and her
daily use of Johnson's Baby Powder from around 1970 to sometime after 2000.
Imerys and Cyprus Amax, represented by the same law firm, filed motions
to dismiss the complaint alleging neither corporation is amenable to suit in New
Jersey under either general or specific jurisdiction. As already noted, both are
Delaware corporations with a principal place of business in California for
Imerys and Arizona for Cyprus Amax. They asserted that neither corporation
has offices, employees, real or personal property or bank accounts in New Jersey
A-3655-17T3
3
nor has ever filed a lawsuit here. Defendants argued their lack of any contacts
with New Jersey precluded suit against them here.
Plaintiffs opposed the motions, arguing that Imerys and Cyprus Amax
were sued as successors and the jurisdictional contacts, both general and
specific, of their predecessors could be imputed to them to establish jurisdiction.
Relying on depositions of designated representatives of defendants in other
cases, as well as their declarations and representations on summary judgment
motions in other jurisdictions, plaintiffs sought to establish Imerys' and Cyprus
Amax's historic connection to the talc business in New Jersey.
Before relaying the evidence plaintiffs adduced on the motion, we note
the court did not make specific findings about the corporate lineage of either
Imerys or Cyprus Amax, perhaps owing to their decision to premise their
motions on the constitutionality of successor jurisdiction and not on the facts.
There was also no jurisdictional discovery undertaken, again based on
defendants' failure to argue the facts of successorship or seek jurisdictional
discovery until their joint motion for reconsideration. Thus the record on appeal
leaves a great deal to be desired. While some points seem clear, there are
numerous corporate entities with similar names, particularly as to Cyprus,
A-3655-17T3
4
making it very difficult to follow or present a cogent account of corporate
succession.
Having said that, plaintiffs presented evidence on the motion that Charles
Mathieu, Inc., a New Jersey corporation in existence from 1933 to 1981,
imported talc to the United States from Italy for use in the cosmetic
pharmaceutic market. From approximately 1957 to 1979, Colgate purchased
Italian talc from Mathieu, which Colgate incorporated into its product,
Cashmere Bouquet, produced at its Jersey City plant. Although the record is
less developed with regard to Johnson & Johnson, it also bought Italian talc from
Mathieu during the same period.
In the mid-1970s, Mathieu opened a talc processing plant in South
Plainfield under the name Metropolitan Talc Company, a company incorporated
in New Jersey in 1964. Mathieu also had other alleged subsidiaries that mined
minerals in the United States including Resource Processors, Inc. and American
Resource Talc, Inc.
According to answers to interrogatories supplied by Imerys in another
case and presented by plaintiffs on the motion, Cyprus Georesearch, an alleged
wholly owned subsidiary of Cyprus Mines, acquired the assets of Mathieu,
Metropolitan Talc, American Resource Talc and Resource Processors in 1979.
A-3655-17T3
5
Mathieu, Metropolitan Talc, American Resource Talc and Resource Processors
were thereafter wound up, with the New Jersey corporations, Mathieu and
Metropolitan Talc, formally dissolving in 1981. There is some indication that
another Charles Mathieu company continued in some form thereafter as Cyprus
Industrial Minerals apparently continued to pay it a commission on its purchases
of Italian talc. There is also some indication in the record that Cyprus Industrial
Minerals was aware of a lawsuit in 1979 against Metropolitan in which the
plaintiffs alleged exposure to Metropolitan talc caused one of them to develop
mesothelioma, and that the Cyprus purchase was structured to avoid assumption
of Mathieu's liabilities after that suit came to light.
Cyprus Mines, allegedly doing business as Cyprus Industrial Minerals,
took over operations at the Metropolitan Talc plant in South Plainfield upon
sale, retaining the plant's employees, including two of Mathieu's owners and
officers, Donald Ferry and Peter Bixby. According to deposition transcripts
plaintiffs submitted on the motion of Ferry and Henry Mulryan, Chief Executive
Officer of Cyprus Industrial Minerals, that entity continued to sell Italian talc to
Colgate between 1979 and 1992.
In 1992, Cyprus Mines Corporation doing business as Cyprus Industrial
Minerals Company supposedly transferred its talc business to a newly created
A-3655-17T3
6
entity Cyprus Talc Corporation for the purpose of selling it. On June 5, 1992,
RTZ America, Inc., a predecessor of Rio Tinto America Holdings Inc.,
purchased all the outstanding stock of Cyprus Talc from Cyprus Mines
Corporation. Following the transaction, Rio Tinto changed the name of Cyprus
Talc to Luzenac America, Inc. In 2011, Imerys Minerals UK, Ltd. purchased all
the outstanding stock of Luzenac America and changed its name to Imerys Talc
America, Inc., defendant Imerys in this action. Plaintiffs presented the
declaration of Patrick J. Downey, an authorized representative of Imerys, who
averred in another case pending in California that "Imerys is the successor to the
talc business of Cyprus Industrial Minerals Company, which supplied cosmetic
talc to [Colgate] that was used in manufacturing Cashmere Bouquet talcum
powder."
In 1993, following the transfer of Cyprus's talc business to Cyprus Talc
and then to RTZ, Cyprus Mines Corporation and Cyprus Minerals Company
merged with Amax, Inc. to form Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, defendant
here. Among the documents plaintiffs submitted in opposition to the motion is
a statement of undisputed material facts Cyprus Amax filed in support of a
motion for summary judgment in a case in California, asserting it has never
engaged in the processing, marketing or sale of talc.
A-3655-17T3
7
In its reply papers, Imerys and Cyprus Amax attacked plaintiffs' legal
basis for jurisdiction, arguing no published decision from any New Jersey court
has recognized successor jurisdiction based on a product line theory. They
contended that subjecting them to suit in New Jersey based not on their contacts
to New Jersey but on those of their alleged product line successors violated the
Due Process Clause.
The trial court judge denied the motion to dismiss. In a written opinion,
the judge rejected plaintiffs' assertion that Imerys and Cyprus Amax were
subject to general, all-purpose jurisdiction in New Jersey but also rejected
Imerys' and Cyprus Amax's claims that their predecessors' contacts with New
Jersey could not be constitutionally imputed to them, relying on the Third
Circuit's discussion of successor jurisdiction in In re Nazi Era Cases Against
German Defendants Litigation, 153 F. App'x 819, 822-23 (3d Cir. 2005), and
dicta in the United States Supreme Court's recent opinion in Bristol-Myers
Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California, 582 U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 1773,
1783 (2017). Referring to Bristol-Myers, the judge found "the Supreme Court
has implicitly recognized that derivative liability may be the basis for [a] finding
A-3655-17T3
8
of state court personal jurisdiction over a defendant." 1 Finding that "defendants,
through their respective corporate designees, admit to the successor corporation
relationship" with Charles Mathieu, Inc. and Metropolitan Talc, both New
Jersey corporations, the court found "no burden" on Imerys and Cyprus Amax
"to litigate these claims, where the conduct alleged — the sale and processing
of talc manufactured by New Jersey companies — occurred, in New Jersey."
Imerys and Cyprus Amax moved for reconsideration, arguing, first, that
the successor jurisdiction theory applied by the court has never been recognized
by this court or our Supreme Court and is in "direct conflict with the due process
1
In Bristol-Myers, the Court found California state courts lacked specific
jurisdiction over claims by non-California residents for injuries allegedly
suffered as a result of Plavix, a prescription blood-thinner, developed and
manufactured by Bristol-Myers, a Delaware corporation headquartered in New
York, in New York and New Jersey and sold nationally through a California
distributor, McKesson. 137 S. Ct. at 1777-78. In rejecting plaintiffs' "last ditch
contention" that Bristol-Myers' decision to contract with McKesson to distribute
Plavix could support California's exercise of specific jurisdiction over Bristol-
Myers, Justice Alito noted there was no allegation the pharmaceutical company
engaged in any relevant acts with McKesson, or that Bristol-Myers was
"derivatively liable for McKesson’s conduct in California." Id. at 1783. The
Court concluded "[t]he bare fact that [Bristol-Myers] contracted with a
California distributor is not enough to establish personal jurisdiction in the
State." Ibid. That a corporation could establish the minimum contacts necessary
to support personal jurisdiction through an agent's contacts with the forum is,
we think, an unremarkable proposition. See Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith,
384 F.3d 93, 101 n.7 (3d Cir. 2004). We thus do not read the dicta in Bristol-
Myers as supporting successor jurisdiction based on the product line exception.
A-3655-17T3
9
analysis [of] the U.S. Supreme Court . . . beginning with . . . Daimler [AG v.
Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014)]". Second, defendants argued there were
significant disputes of fact "regarding successor liability . . . that by extension"
apply to personal jurisdiction on that basis. Defendants also emphasized the
"fundamental differences" between Cyprus Amax and Imerys "such that the
determination of personal jurisdiction on the successor liability has two different
sets of facts that would have to be considered."
Specifically, defendants argued Cyprus Amax "has never been involved
in the mining, milling, manufacture, sale or distribution of talc at any time, a
point which has never been disputed by Plaintiffs." Further, defendants noted
Cyprus Amax "did not come into existence until 1993," after RTZ America had
already purchased Cyprus Mines' and Cyprus Minerals' talc business by buying
Cyprus Talc in a stock sale. Defendants argued Cyprus Amax was formed after
plaintiff's exposure to Cashmere Bouquet ended, and it is "not the legal
successor to the talc business of Charles Mathieu, Inc., Cyprus Mines
Corporation, or any of their subsidiaries."
In a third point, Imerys, although conceding it is the legal successor of
Cyprus Mines, contended it was not the legal successor to Mathieu or
Metropolitan. Like Cyprus Amax, Imerys argued the court erred in failing to
A-3655-17T3
10
undertake a separate analysis as to whether it "is, in fact, a legal successor-in-
interest to the talc business" of Mathieu or Metropolitan.
The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration. The court reiterated
its view that the jurisdictional contacts of a successor corporation can be
imputed to a successor without offending due process "post Daimler" as
"emphasized by Justice Alito in . . . Bristol-Myers." It further noted defendants
had not defended the motion on the facts of successorship and could not do so
on reconsideration by raising new arguments. The judge found plaintiffs had
established a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, and noted specifically a filing
by Cyprus Amax in other litigation affirmatively representing that "RTZ
America, Inc., a predecessor of Rio Tinto . . . acquired the existing talc business
operated by predecessors of [Cyprus Amax]."
We granted interlocutory review of that decision to Imerys and Cyprus
Amax. Imerys' bankruptcy, however, leaves Cyprus Amax the sole appellant.
It argues the trial court erred in finding it an admitted successor to Mathieu, and
that "the basis for the trial court's finding of jurisdiction" over it, as opposed to
Imerys, "is unclear." It further argues that "the trial court's application of
successor personal jurisdiction is unconstitutional." Finally, it argues the trial
court has "compound[ed] its error by automatically applying [its decision in this
A-3655-17T3
11
case] to the rest of the docket — at least twenty-eight jurisdictionally dissimilar
cases."2
Cyprus Amax, although having taken the position in the trial court that
successor jurisdiction is flatly unconstitutional, has refined its argument on
appeal. It now concedes that some forms of traditional successor liability
forming the basis of "successor jurisdiction may be constitutional" but "product
line successor jurisdiction is not, because it does not depend on a finding of
corporate sameness."
Plaintiffs argue the trial court "correctly found that . . . Cyprus [Amax]
and Imerys are product line successors" to Mathieu and Metropolitan Talc, "the
New Jersey-based entities who milled and distributed the talc that was contained
in the finished powder products at issue (which were also manufactured in and
distributed from New Jersey) that proximately caused Linda Huff's inevitably
fatal mesothelioma." Plaintiffs contend "that, no matter what theory of
successor liability is involved, the contacts of a corporate predecessor may be
2
Even were we not dismissing the interlocutory appeal as having been
improvidently granted, we would have declined to reach this argument.
Defendant has not sought, nor have we granted, leave to appeal any order beyond
the ones on appeal, and our review is obviously limited accordingly. See
Towpath Unity Tenants Ass'n v. Barba, 182 N.J. Super. 77, 81 (App. Div. 1981).
We likewise deny defendants' motion to supplement the record with orders in
other cases denying motions to dismiss filed by Cyprus Amax and Imerys.
A-3655-17T3
12
attributed to its successor for the purposes of jurisdictional analysis without
offending . . . due process."
Both parties have litigated this case with the goal of obtaining a ruling on
the constitutionality of product line successor jurisdiction. We granted leave to
appeal because defendants asserted the trial court had unconstitutionally
exercised personal jurisdiction over them based on their status as product line
successors. Although contending it is not the successor of either Mathieu or
Metropolitan Talc, Imerys acknowledged it is the legal successor of Cyprus
Mines, which, doing business as Cyprus Industrial Minerals, took over
operations at Metropolitan Talc's South Plainfield plant in 1979 and thereafter
supplied talc to Colgate until 1992.
As our Supreme Court explained in Lefever v. K.P. Hovnanian
Enterprises, 160 N.J. 307, 310 (1999):
The general rule of corporate-successor liability is that
when a company sells its assets to another company, the
acquiring company is not liable for the debts and
liabilities of the selling company simply because it has
succeeded to the ownership of the assets of the seller.
Traditionally, there have been only four exceptions: (1)
the successor expressly or impliedly assumes the
predecessor's liabilities; (2) there is an actual or de
facto consolidation or merger of the seller and the
purchaser; (3) the purchasing company is a mere
A-3655-17T3
13
continuation of the seller; or (4) the transaction is
entered into fraudulently to escape liability. [3]
New Jersey is one of five states that recognizes an additional exception to
the general rule of corporate successor non-liability. Mettinger, 153 N.J. at 396.
New Jersey's product line exception adopted in Ramirez v. Amsted Industries,
Inc., 86 N.J. 332 (1981), imposes liability on a corporation that acquires all or
substantially all the manufacturing assets of another corporation and continues
the same product line. Lefever, 160 N.J. at 310.
The question here, however, is not successor liability but successor
jurisdiction. In a series of cases over the last several years, the Unites States
Supreme Court has explored "the outer boundaries of a state tribunal's authority
to proceed against a defendant" under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.4 Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915,
923 (2011). As Justice Ginsburg noted in Goodyear,
[t]he canonical opinion in this area remains
International Shoe [Company v. Washington, 326 U.S.
3
"A fifth exception, sometimes incorporated in one of the [four traditional]
exceptions, arises from the absence of adequate consideration for the sale or
transfer." Mettinger v. Globe Slicing Mach. Co., 153 N.J. 371, 380 (1998).
4
We note New Jersey's long-arm rule, Rule 4:4-4(b)(1), permits our courts to
exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants "to the uttermost
limits permitted by the United States Constitution." Avdel Corp. v. Mecure, 58
N.J. 264, 268 (1971).
A-3655-17T3
14
310 (1945)], in which [the Supreme Court] held that a
State may authorize its courts to exercise personal
jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant if the
defendant has “certain minimum contacts with [the
State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not
offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.'"
[Ibid. (citation omitted).]
Although the United States Supreme Court has not addressed whether a
foreign corporation could be subjected to a court’s general or specific
jurisdiction based on the contacts of a predecessor-in-interest, it has certainly
acknowledged that one corporation's jurisdictional contacts might be imputed
to another. See Daimler, 571 U.S. at 134-36 (noting the Court "has not yet
addressed whether a foreign corporation may be subjected to a court’s general
jurisdiction based on the contacts of its in-state subsidiary," although rejecting
the Ninth Circuit’s agency theory, which would "subject foreign corporations
to general jurisdiction whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate,"
as "an outcome that would sweep beyond even the 'sprawling view of general
jurisdiction' we rejected in Goodyear").
Several circuit courts of appeals, including our own, have addressed
whether a predecessor's jurisdictional contacts could be imputed to a successor.
See, e.g., In re Nazi Era Cases, 153 F. App'x at 822-23 (finding successor
A-3655-17T3
15
jurisdiction consonant with successor liability under New York law); Purdue
Research Found. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2003)
(recognizing a predecessor's jurisdictional contacts may be imputed to a
successor where the successor corporation is a mere continuation of the
predecessor or where the forum's successor liability laws would hold the
successor liable for the predecessor's actions); Patin v. Thoroughbred Power
Boats Inc., 294 F.3d 640 (5th Cir. 2002) (predecessor corporation's waiver of
personal jurisdiction can be imputed to successor when successor is deemed to
be mere continuation of its predecessor); Williams v. Bowman Livestock Equip.
Co., 927 F.2d 1128, 1132 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding "[a] corporation's contacts
with a forum may be imputed to its successor if forum law would hold the
successor liable for the actions of its predecessor"); Duris v. Erato Shipping,
Inc., 684 F.2d 352, 356 (6th Cir. 1982) (permitting successor jurisdiction
following merger noting "[a]ny other ruling would allow corporations to
immunize themselves by formalistically changing their titles").
In In re Nazi Era Cases, relied on by the trial judge here, the Third Circuit,
applying New York law, explained that "[t ]he method by which corporations
combine can render a 'successor in interest' to a prior corporation subject to
personal jurisdiction under [New York's long-arm statute] based on the
A-3655-17T3
16
predecessor's actions." 153 F. App'x at 822. The In re Nazi Era Cases court
concluded "that successor-jurisdiction in New York can be present in the
following situations: (1) merger or de facto merger; (2) express or implied
assumption of liabilities, including by a ratification of the predecessor's
activities; or (3) acquisition of assets or reorganization undertaken to
fraudulently avoid jurisdiction," the same circumstances in which New York
imputes successor liability. Id. at 823. New York does not recognize successor
liability based on the product line exception. See Semenetz v. Sherling &
Walden, Inc., 818 N.Y.S.2d 819, 824 (N.Y. 2006) (rejecting product line
exception as too radical a change from existing law implicating complex
economic considerations better left to the Legislature).5
Notably, no court appears to have addressed, in a reported decision or
otherwise, whether product line successor liability could support specific
jurisdiction over a successor lacking minimum contacts to the forum after
5
In rejecting product line successor liability, New York's highest court
expressly declined to "address [the] argument that personal jurisdiction may
properly be imputed to a successor corporation whenever it is substantively
responsible for its predecessor's allegedly tortious conduct." Id. at 822 n.2.
A-3655-17T3
17
Daimler.6 The issue is significant because product line liability, which focuses
on "the successor's undertaking to manufacture essentially the same line of
products as the predecessor" represents a significant break with "the traditional
principles of corporate successor nonliability" and exceptions, which focus on
"the continuation of the corporate entity as such." Ramirez, 86 N.J. at 347. The
issue is whether due process permits imputation of a predecessor's jurisdictional
contacts to a product line successor which cannot be said to be a mere
continuation of the predecessor.
Although we were poised to address that question in this case, it is not
clear to us that the question is now actually presented, notwithstanding the
parties' assertions prior to Imerys' bankruptcy. The facts of Cyprus Amax's
corporate history are so murky we cannot discern on this record whether it is a
successor-in-interest to Mathieu or Metropolitan. And although it appears
6
We are aware of two courts addressing the issue prior to Daimler, which came
to opposite conclusions on the question. See Sementz v. Sherling & Walden,
Inc., 801 N.Y.S.2d 78 (3d Dept 2005), aff'd, 818 N.Y.S.2d 819 (2006) (noting
the product line exception to the successor liability rule deals "with the concept
of tort liability, not jurisdiction" such that the exception "do[es] not and cannot
confer . . . jurisdiction over the successor in the first instance"); Simmers v. Am.
Cyanamid Corp., 576 A.2d 376, 390 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990) (holding "a successor
company which purchases and manufactures a predecessor's product line cannot
avoid the jurisdiction of those forums wherein the product was previously
manufactured and distributed").
A-3655-17T3
18
reasonably certain to be a successor to at least some Cyprus entities, it is not
clear whether its alleged liability for plaintiffs' injuries in that capacity would
even implicate the product line exception on the facts as presented, or instead
rest on the traditional exceptions to successor non-liability or that Cyprus Amax
remains the same entity as its predecessors who supplied talc to Colgate.
Compare Lefever, 160 N.J. at 326 n.4 (agreeing with our opinion in Saez v. S &
S Corrugated Paper Mach. Co., 302 N.J. Super. 545, 554 (App. Div. 1997), "that
it is wrong to impose successor liability on an asset purchaser that discontinues
the product line"), with Arevalo v. Saginaw Mach. Systems, Inc., 344 N.J.
Super. 490, 492, 498 (App. Div. 2001) (reversing summary judgment to
successor company, which did not continue allegedly defective product
manufactured by its predecessor, based on finding that successor was the same
company, after spin-off and sale of machine tool division, that manufactured the
allegedly defective product and could not "avoid liability for the product it
manufactured by simply transferring all diecasting machinery manufacturing
operations, assets, and accompanying obligations" to a new entity).
Because we find the factual record too incomplete to resolve the
jurisdiction question allegedly presented by the order we granted Cyprus Amax
leave to appeal, we dismiss the appeal and remand the matter to the trial court.
A-3655-17T3
19
We specifically do not address the factual issues as to successorship Cyprus
Amax failed to raise until reconsideration. See Chirino v. Proud 2 Haul, Inc.,
458 N.J. Super. 308, 318 (App. Div. 2017) (noting reviewing courts generally
decline to consider questions or issues not presented properly to the trial court
when the opportunity was available), aff'd o.b., 237 N.J. 440 (2019). Although
the matter is certainly not free from doubt, we cannot find the trial court erred
in finding plaintiffs carried their burden to establish a prima facie basis for the
exercise of personal jurisdiction over Cyprus Amax, see Citibank, N.A. v. Estate
of Simpson, 290 N.J. Super. 519, 533 (App. Div. 1996), in the absence of any
challenge to the facts presented in opposition to the motion, see Dutch Run-
Mays Draft, LLC v. Wolf Block, LLP, 450 N.J. Super. 590, 598 (App. Div.
2017). Cyprus Amax, of course, remains free to challenge the State's exercise
of personal jurisdiction over it on either a properly supported motion to dismiss
or for summary judgment.
Appeal dismissed.
A-3655-17T3
20