Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. Rima Indus. S.A.

Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. Rima Indus. S.A.

Opinion

 [*319]  MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Globe Metallurgical Inc. ("Globe"), a corporation based in Beverly, Ohio, is the leading domestic manufacturer of silicon metal and silicon-based ferroalloys. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 16, ¶ 14.) Defendant Rima Industrial S.A. ("Rima") is a rival silicon metal manufacturer based in Brazil. (See id. ¶ 3.) Neither party is based in the District of Columbia or conducts any business here. Nevertheless, Globe has brought the instant action against Rima and its purported co-conspirators, claiming that these out-of-state defendants have committed RICO violations, tortious interference, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment. The crux of Globe's complaint is the contention that, approximately 15 years ago, Rima acted in concert with its co-defendants [**2]  to lie to the Commerce  [*320]  Department in order to get certain duties on imported silicon metal revoked, which allowed Rima to export its product to the U.S. market without the burden of the previous tariffs, thereby costing Globe both sales and customers.

Before this Court at present is Defendants' motion to dismiss. (See Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 17.) Defendants make three arguments for dismissal: first, that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendants; second, that Plaintiff's claims are untimely; and third, that Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons explained below, this Court finds that it need go no further than Defendants' first contention. It is undisputed that the sole contact that Defendants have had with the District of Columbia is Rima's interaction with the Commerce Department regarding the antidumping order, and under D.C. law, the assertion of personal jurisdiction cannot be based on such contacts. Furthermore, although D.C. courts have recognized a narrow "fraud exception" to this government contacts doctrine, that exception does not apply here because Globe does not allege that Defendants fraudulently [**3]  induced unwarranted government action against it, and Globe's other arguments for personal jurisdiction are unavailing. Consequently, and as set forth in the accompanying order, Defendant's motion will be GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.