Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-1072.
June 3, 2004
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before the Court is Defendant BL Service's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction or, in the alternative, Motion to Transfer. (Dkt. No. 3). For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Defendant's Motion to Transfer is GRANTED as well.
Plaintiff, Patrick Neary, ("Plaintiff") asserts claims against BL Service, Inc. ("BL Service") and Jhonson Ducaste ("Ducaste"), an employee of BL Service, for negligence and strict liability arising out of an alleged car accident that occurred on March 13, 2002 in Florida. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, BL Service, owns and operates "Yellow Cab" vehicles in the State of Florida (Compl. ¶ 5) and, on the night at issue, Ducaste, acting within the scope of his employment for BL Service, drove Plaintiff in one of its vehicles. (Id. ¶ 6). Plaintiff further alleges that at approximately 1:20 a.m., the "Yellow Cab" vehicle in which Plaintiff was riding struck another cab that was stopped at an intersection waiting to make a turn. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13). Plaintiff alleges that the accident was caused by Ducaste's negligence and that he suffered severe injuries as a result of this accident. (Id. ¶¶ 18-26).
On April 1, 2004, Defendant BL Service filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction or, in the alternative, a Motion to Transfer. (Dkt. No. 3). On April 19, 2004, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Conduct Discovery necessary to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 4). On May 11, 2004, Plaintiff's motion was denied (Dkt. No. 10); Plaintiff responded to the Dismissal Motion on May 19, 2004. (Dkt. No. 11).
Whether personal jurisdiction exists over an out-of-state defendant involves a two-step inquiry: (1) does the forum state's long-arm permits service of process, and (2) would the assertion of personal jurisdiction violate due process. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-476 (1985); see also Lawman Armor Corp. v. Simon, 2003 WL 23525361, at *2 (E.D. Pa. May 7, 2004). "Because Pennsylvania's long-arm statute is coextensive with the limits of due process, the two inquiries collapse into a single inquiry — whether jurisdiction comports with due process." Id.
"Two strains of personal jurisdiction exist: general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction." Donohue v. Team Rensi Motorsports, LLC, 2002 WL 32341953, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2002). A court may exercise general jurisdiction when the defendant maintains "continuous and systematic" contacts with the forums state, regardless of whether the cause of action arises from non-forum related activities. Remick c. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248, 255 (3d Cir. 2001). A court may exercise specific jurisdiction, however, when "the non-resident has `purposefully directed' his activities at a resident of the forum and the injury arises from or is related to those activities." General Electric Co. v. Deutz, 270 F.3d 144, 150 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing Burger King, 471 U.S. at 472)).
Plaintiff argues only the existence of general jurisdiction. (Pl. Br. at 3-4). In order to satisfy due process to justify this Court's exercising general jurisdiction, the plaintiff must establish that the Defendant has certain minimum contacts with the State of Pennsylvania such that maintaining the instant action does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). "Random," fortuitous," or "attenuated" contacts are not considered in this analysis. Id. at 475.
In support of his contention that this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant, Plaintiff argues that Yellow Cab is in the "general business" of transportation and "one means of accomplishing this goal is through a readily identifiable product . . . and by advertising in the telephone book." Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer, at page 3. Plaintiff further argues that BL Service has benefitted from this advertising because Plaintiff states that "he selected Yellow Cab upon exiting the airport because of his experience and knowledge of their [sic] reputation in Pennsylvania." Id.
This Court finds that a phone book printed by the phone company for use by individuals in certain areas of Pennsylvania which contains an advertisement by a company called "Yellow Cab," without demonstrating any legal corporate connection between Defendant BL Service and the use of the name "Yellow Cab" is insufficient to meet Plaintiff's burden that Defendant BL Service has "continuous and systematic" contacts with the State of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff's complaint is insufficient to permit this Court to infer that Defendant BL Service had any contacts with the State of Pennsylvania, let alone "continuous and systematic" contacts. Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that maintaining the instant action would not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice," the Court may not exercise jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is granted.
However, if an action is brought in a court lacking jurisdiction, the court shall, in the interest of justice, transfer such action to any other such court in which the action could have been brought at the time it was filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1631; see also Nolt Nolt, Inc. v. Rio Grande, Inc., 738 F. Supp. 163 (E.D. Pa. 1990) (transferring jurisdiction to New Jersey under 28. U.S.C. § 1631 when there was no personal jurisdiction over defendant in Pennsylvania). Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 1631 provides:
Whenever a civil action is filed in a court . . . and that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed, and the action or appeal shall proceed as if it had been filed in or noticed for the court to which it was transferred on the date upon which it was actually filed in or noticed for the court from which it is transferred.28 U.S.C. § 1631. The moving Defendant has requested the transfer the case to the Southern District of Florida if this Court found insufficient jurisdiction to maintain this action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The Court finds that personal jurisdiction is proper as to all Defendants in Florida as they are present within the State's physical boundaries. Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff could have brought this action in the Southern District of Florida because the alleged injury occurred in Florida and Plaintiff is a resident of Pennsylvania. Accordingly, it is in the interests of justice to transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
AND NOW, this 3d day of June, 2004, upon consideration of the Motion to Transfer filed by Defendants, BL Service, Inc., d/b/a Yellow Cab Company and Jhonson Ducaste, and any response(s), it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant BL Service's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction or, in the alternative, Motion to Transfer (Dkt. No. 3) is GRANTED. Accordingly, it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendants, is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is directed to TRANSFER this matter to the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida.