Opinion
3:22-cv-01723-YY
03-03-2023
JOHN HARPER, Plaintiff, v. AMUR EQUIPMENT FINANCE, INC.; WATSON & CHELIN MANUFACTURING, INC.; ARTISAN AND TRUCKERS CASUALTY COMPANY, INC. and/or PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE CORPORATION, INC., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Youlee Yim You United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, an Oregon resident who is proceeding pro se, filed this suit after a trailer he was pulling with his semi-tractor caught fire in Wyoming during a delivery of heavy equipment that plaintiff was transporting from Tacoma, Washington, to Hudson, Connecticut. Compl. ¶ 7, ECF 1. The trailer was manufactured in Kansas; plaintiff purchased the trailer in Tennessee and registered the trailer in Oregon. Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiff alleges that a component of the trailer's axle that was manufactured by defendant Watson & Chelin Manufacturing, Inc. (W&C), a Texas company, was the culprit of the fire. Id. ¶¶ 3, 15. Plaintiff has also sued the company who provided financing for the trailer's purchase, Amur Equipment Finance, Inc., and his insurance carrier, Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company. Id. ¶¶ 13, 17.
Currently pending is W&C's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, ECF 7, and plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Complaint Against W&C to add a claim for punitive damages. ECF 20. W&C's motion to dismiss should be granted because W&C is at home in Texas and the complaint does not allege any contacts W&C had with Oregon that could support personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff's motion to supplement should accordingly be denied as moot.
I. Legal Standard-Rule 12(b)(2)
When faced with a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the court's exercise of jurisdiction is proper. Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004)). Where the court's determination is based on written materials rather than an evidentiary hearing, “the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts.” Id. (quoting Scher v.Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990)). A plaintiff cannot rest on the bare allegations of its complaint, but uncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be taken as true. Id.“Conflicts between parties over statements contained in affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor.” In re Boon Glob. Ltd., 923 F.3d 643, 650 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 800). Documents filed by a pro se plaintiff are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than those filed by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
II. Personal Jurisdiction Analysis
“Federal courts ordinarily follow state law in determining the bounds of their jurisdiction over persons.” Picot, 780 F.3d at 1211 (quoting Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 125 (2014)); seeFED. R. CIV. P. 4(k)(1)(A). Oregon's long-arm statute is co-extensive with constitutional standards, and thus this court need only determine whether its exercise of personal jurisdiction is consistent with constitutional due process standards. Gray & Co. v.Firstenberg Mach. Co., 913 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing OR. R. CIV. P. 4L); Swank v.Terex Utilities, Inc., 274 Or.App. 47, 57 (2015).
Constitutional due process requires that the defendant “have certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int'l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (citations omitted). “In giving content to that formulation, the Court has long focused on the nature and extent of ‘the defendant's relationship to the forum State.' ” Ford Motor Co. v. Montana EighthJud. Dist. Ct., 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1024 (2021) (quoting Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. ofCalifornia, San Francisco Cty., 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1779 (2017)). That focus led to the recognition of two kinds of personal jurisdiction: general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. Id. (citing Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011))
General jurisdiction extends to “any and all claims” brought against a defendant, but a court may exercise general jurisdiction only when a defendant is “essentially at home” in the forum state. Ford Motor, 141 S.Ct. at 1024 (citation omitted). Individuals are subject to general jurisdiction in their place of domicile. Id. (citing Daimler, 571 U.S. at 137). A corporation is subject to general jurisdiction in its place of incorporation and its principal place of business, but a corporation may be “at home” somewhere else in an exceptional case. Id. (citing Daimler, 571 U.S. at 139 n.19).
There is no general jurisdiction over W&C here. The uncontroverted evidence shows that W&C is a Texas company, organized under the laws of Texas, with a principal place of business in McKinney, Texas. Hudson Decl., ¶ 2, ECF 8. Thus, general jurisdiction exists in Texas, not Oregon, for W&C. Ford Motor, 141 S.Ct. at 1024; Menken v. Emm, 503 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding general jurisdiction exists when “a defendant's contacts with a forum are so substantial, continuous, and systematic that the defendant can be deemed to be ‘present' in that forum for all purposes”).
Specific jurisdiction applies to a broader class of defendants than general jurisdiction, but for a “narrower class of claims.” Ford Motor, 141 S.Ct. at 1024. Specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant depends on the relationship between “the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283 (2014). The Ninth Circuit employs a three-prong test for analyzing specific jurisdiction. First, the defendant “must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Glob. Commodities Trading Grp., Inc.v. Beneficio de Arroz Choloma, S.A., 972 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802). Second, the claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant's forum-related activities, though a strict causal relationship is not required. Id.; FordMotor, 141 S.Ct. at 1026. Third, the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e., it must be reasonable. Glob. Commodities, 972 F.3d at 1107.
There is no specific jurisdiction over W&C in Oregon because the only relevant connections this case has to Oregon is that plaintiff lives in Oregon and registered the trailer at issue in Oregon. Compl. ¶ 6, ECF 1. The trailer was built in Kansas, and plaintiff bought the trailer in Tennessee. Id. The act of selling a product that is later incorporated into another product is not enough, by itself, to support specific personal jurisdiction if the plaintiff later brings the final product into the forum state (here, Oregon). Holland Am. Line Inc. v. Wartsila N. Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 459 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without more, is not an act purposefully directed toward a forum state.”) (citing Asahi MetalIndus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 112 (1987)).
It is not sufficient that plaintiff brought the trailer into Oregon from another state. The “plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum. Rather, it is the defendant's conduct that must form the necessary connection with the forum State that is the basis for its jurisdiction over him.” Walden, 571 U.S. at 285. Even liberally construing the allegations in plaintiff's complaint and the arguments in plaintiff's response to W&C's motion to dismiss, there are simply no factual allegations that suggest W&C took any specific action by which it could be said that W&C “purposefully availed” itself of doing business or conducting activities in Oregon, and thus this court lacks personal jurisdiction over W&C. Glob.Commodities, 972 F.3d at 1107; see also Grigsby v. CMI Corp., 765 F.2d 1369, 1372 n.5 (9th Cir. 1985) (recognizing that dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction should be without prejudice). And given that plaintiff's claims against W&C should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Complaint Against W&C (ECF 20) is moot.
RECOMMENDATIONS
W&C's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (ECF 7) should be granted and plaintiff's claims against W&C should be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Complaint Against W&C (ECF 20) should be denied as moot. // // //
SCHEDULING ORDER
These Findings and Recommendations will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due Friday, March 24, 2023. If no objections are filed, the n the Findings and Recommendations will go under advisement on that date.
If objections are filed, then a response is due within 14 days after being served with a copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendations will go under advisement.
NOTICE
These Findings and Recommendations are not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of a judgment.