Facts

Members of the U.S. Navy crews of the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan and other vessels deployed nearby in Japan sued Tokyo Electric Power Co. Inc. and General Electric in relation to radiation released after an earthquake triggered tsunami waives that struck Japan's Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, causing severe damage to the plant and releasing radiation.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs claimed they suffered injuries as a result of the release of radiation after the tsunami damaged negligently designed and maintained reactors at the power plant, and sought $1 billion in damages. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action including negligence, strict products liability, strict liability for ultrahazardous activities, res ipsa loquitur, negligence per se, loss of consortium, and survival and wrongful death. Plaintiffs sued Tokyo Electric Power as owner and operator of the power plant, and GE as the designer of the reactors which failed within the power plant.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the contentions. GE argued plaintiffs failed to meet the complete diversity requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), and the court should use choice-of-law rules to apply Japan's Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage, Act No. 147 of June 17, 1961, which would preclude GE's liability for nuclear events. Tokyo Electric Power argued the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it, and choice-of-law and international comity analysis supports dismissal of plaintiffs' claims.

Result

The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims. The court found there is subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims, but California's choice-of-law governmental interest test dictated that Japanese law applied to the claims. The court further decided Japan's Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage shifted all liability from third parties to the nuclear operator, and GE was not a nuclear operator so it could not be held liable. As for Tokyo Electric Power, the court found it waived its jurisdictional challenge by failing to raise the argument in its previous motion to dismiss. The court determined choice-of-law and international comity analysis supported dismissal of plaintiffs' claims.