United States District Court, D. Arizona
Honorable Rosemary Márquez United States District
February 13, 2017, Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich issued
a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 158) recommending that this
Court deny Defendant Get Air, LLC's second Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 97). Defendant Get Air, LLC objected to the
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 164), and Plaintiff responded
in opposition (Doc. 170) to Defendant's Objections.
Blake Haines alleges that he suffered catastrophic injuries
when he performed a multiple-flip maneuver from a trampoline
platform into a foam pit at the Get Air Tucson indoor
trampoline park. (Doc. 84 at 10, ¶ 69.) He alleges that
Get Air, LLC created deficient and defective safety rules
applicable to trampoline park customers and supplied those
safety rules to Get Air Tucson for use in the Tucson
trampoline park. (Id. at 6, ¶¶ 37-38.)
Get Air, LLC filed its first Motion to Dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction on July 30, 2015. (Doc. 43.) This Court
denied that motion as moot after granting Plaintiff leave to
amend his complaint. (Doc. 83.) Plaintiff filed his Third
Amended Complaint (Doc. 84) on February 8, 2016.
March 1, 2016, Get Air, LLC filed the currently pending
Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Doc.
97.) After allowing the parties time to conduct limited
jurisdictional discovery (see Doc. 117), Judge
Markovich found that Plaintiff had met his burden of
establishing a prima facie showing of specific personal
jurisdiction, and accordingly recommended that Get Air,
LLC's Motion to Dismiss be denied. (Doc. 158.)
Standard of Review
district judge must “make a de novo determination of
those portions” of a magistrate judge's
“report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). “If no objection or only partial
objection is made, the district court judge reviews those
unobjected portions for clear error.” Johnson v.
Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999);
see also Prior v. Ryan, CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL
1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for clear
error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983
addition (“[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the
court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation” of a magistrate judge).
alleges that this Court has specific (as opposed to general)
personal jurisdiction over Get Air, LLC. (See Doc.
102 at 3.) Judge Markovich accordingly applied the
three-prong test for specific personal jurisdiction:
(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct [its]
activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or
resident thereof; or perform some act by which [it]
purposefully avails [itself] of the privilege of conducting
activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and
protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which
arises out of or relates to the defendant's forum related
activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport
with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be
(Doc. 158 at 5-6 (citing Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin
Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir.
2004)).) Get Air, LLC objects only to the factual
findings that Judge Markovich made in applying the test.
Markovich held that Plaintiff had identified evidence
sufficient to support a finding that Get Air, LLC
purposefully directed its activities at Arizona by creating a
generic employee handbook with the specific intent that it be
used at all then-existing and future Get Air trampoline
parks, including Get Air Tucson; that Plaintiff's claims
arose out of and relate to Get Air, LLC's contacts with
Arizona because they are based on the allegedly defective
safety rules contained in the employee handbook; and that
this Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Get
Air, LLC would be reasonable. In its Objections, Get Air, LLC
argues that the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation erroneously describes the deposition testimony
of Amy Iverson, Jacob Goodell, Val Iverson, and Jessica
Bybee and draws unsupported inferences.
According to Get Air, LLC, Amy Iverson drafted a generic
employee handbook to be used at other Get Air trampoline
parks, but she drafted it for Trampoline Parks, LLC
rather than Get Air, LLC.
evidence indicates that Get Air, LLC operated a trampoline
park in Roy, Utah but that the Get Air Roy park is now
closed, and Get Air, LLC is currently a holding company. (V.
Iverson Dep. at 7:10-19, 19:4-15, 23:14-24:8; J. Goodell Dep.
at 15:5-15.) Trampoline Parks, LLC is a company that designs
and constructs trampoline parks nationwide and
internationally. (V. Iverson Dep. at 7:21-25, 18:7-19:3; J.
Goodell Dep. at 45:22-24.) Both companies were originally
founded by Val Iverson. (V. Iverson Dep. at 7:10-15, 21-25.)
In approximately 2013, a company called Get Air Management,
LLC was formed in order to manage various Get Air trampoline
parks, including Get Air Tucson. (V. Iverson Dep. at 9:4-12;
J. Goodell Dep. at 67:10-68:3.) However, Val Iverson and his
family began expanding the Get Air business by opening and
supporting parks in new locations prior to the creation of
Get Air Management, LLC. The deposition testimony of Amy
Iverson and Jacob Goodell shows significant confusion
regarding whether support for new Get Air trampoline parks
was performed on behalf of Get Air, LLC or Trampoline Parks,
LLC prior to the formation of ...