United States District Court, D. Arizona
G. Campbell United States District Judge
Lavinia Aircraft Leasing, LLC (“Lavinia”) and
Thomas McDermott (“McDermott”) have sued
Defendant Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp.
(“PWC”) and others for the failure of a PWC
engine in a Piper Meridian aircraft. PWC filed a motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for lack of personal
jurisdiction (Doc. 21), and the motion was fully briefed
(Docs. 28, 30). After finding that Plaintiffs had failed to
establish personal jurisdiction over PWC, the Court elected
to delay issuing a final decision and instead allowed
Plaintiffs to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Doc. 35. The
time period for jurisdictional discovery has closed, and
supplemental briefing is complete. Docs. 41, 42. Oral
argument will not aid in the Court's decision.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Partridge v.
Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). PWC's
motion to dismiss will be granted.
Thomas McDermott is an Arizona resident and the sole member
of Lavinia. Doc. 28-1, ¶ 2. He and Lavinia own a 2001
Piper Meridian aircraft and allege that the aircraft's
engine exploded on July 7, 2014. Id., ¶¶
7, 9, 12. Defendant PWC is a foreign corporation with its
principal place of business in Quebec, Canada. Doc. 1-1,
designs, manufactures, distributes, and markets aircraft
engines, including the engine installed in Plaintiffs'
plane. Id., ¶ 13. On November 7, 2013,
Plaintiff McDermott purchased a used 2001 Piper Meridian
aircraft from Cutter Southwest Aviation Aircraft Sales, LLC
(“Cutter”). Id., ¶ 7. On July 7,
2014, McDermott was preparing to take off from a Colorado
airport when the engine exploded. Id., ¶¶
7, 9, 12. After the engine failure, McDermott purchased a PWC
replacement engine through PWC employees in Arizona.
Id., ¶ 22, 23, 25.
6, 2016, Plaintiffs filed suit asserting theories of strict
product liability, negligence, and breach of warranties. Doc.
1-1. On August 25, 2016, the action was removed to this Court
based on diversity of citizenship. Doc. 1.
December 20, 2016 order, at Plaintiffs' request, the
Court agreed that “Plaintiffs may engage in
jurisdictional discovery between [December 20, 2016] and
February 3, 2017.” Doc. 35 at 7. The Court further
ordered that “Plaintiffs shall file a supplemental
memorandum . . . setting forth the additional evidence that
supports specific personal jurisdiction, on or before
February 8, 2017.” Id. On February 9, 2017,
Plaintiffs filed their supplemental memorandum. Doc. 41.
submit no additional evidence obtained from jurisdictional
discovery. See Id. The docket shows that Plaintiffs
took no discovery during the extended discovery period.
Instead, Plaintiffs' supplemental brief alleges new facts
in an attempt to establish specific personal jurisdiction
over PWC. Id. at 3-4. PWC does not argue that the
Court may not consider these new facts that were apparently
available, but not raised, at the time of Plaintiffs'
response brief. Doc. 42. Instead, PWC addresses
Plaintiff's argument on the merits and contends that
Plaintiffs still fail to establish specific jurisdiction over
PWC in Arizona. Id. at 2-6.
bear the burden of proving that the Court may exercise
specific jurisdiction over PWC. Pebble Beach Co. v.
Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006).
“Where, as here, the defendant's motion is based on
written materials rather than an evidentiary hearing, the
plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of
jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to
dismiss.” Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs.,
Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing
Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606
F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2010)). “The plaintiff cannot
‘simply rest on the bare allegations of its complaint,
' but uncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be
taken as true.” Id. (quoting
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d
797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004)).
long-arm statute, Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.2(a), applies in this
diversity action. See Terracom v. Valley Nat'l
Bank,49 F.3d 555, 559 (9th Cir. 1995). Rule 4.2(a)
“provides for personal jurisdiction co-extensive with
the limits of federal due process.” Doe v. Am.
Nat'l Red Cross,112 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir. 1997)
(citation omitted). A corporation “may be subject to
personal jurisdiction only when its contacts with the forum
state support either specific ...