TP Racing LLLP v. My Way Holdings LLC

          ORDER

          G. MURRAY SNOW CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Pending before the Court is Defendant My Way Holdings, LLC's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and alternative Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or Transfer to the District of New Mexico. (Doc. 7.) For the following reasons, the Court denies the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, denies the alternative Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, and denies the alternative Motion to Transfer.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff TP Racing, LLLP (“TPR”) is an Arizona corporation operating a horse racing track in Arizona called Turf Paradise. Defendant My Way Holdings, LLC (“MWH”) is a Nevada limited liability company whose principal place of business-also a racetrack-is in Sunland Park, New Mexico. MWH's Sunland Park facility receives and transmits “simulcasts” (real-time broadcasts) of horse races to and from other locations around the country. Turf Paradise receives simulcasts from other racetracks, including Sunland Park.

         In 2016, a horse at MWH's Sunland Park facility contracted Equine Herpes Virus. After learning of the infection, MWH allegedly failed to take industry-standard precautions, which would have included (1) quarantine of the facility and any horses potentially exposed to the dangerous virus, and (2) notifying other facilities to which horses housed at Sunland Park might be transferred. Horses housed at Sunland Park during that time were subsequently transferred to TPR's Turf Paradise facility in Arizona. TPR alleges that the virus then spread from Sunland Park to Turf Paradise, resulting in the euthanization of one horse and extensive economic losses for TPR when hundreds of owners removed their horses from Turf Paradise.

         TPR filed this tort action against MWH in the Superior Court for Maricopa County. MWH then removed the case to this Court. (Doc. 1.) MWH now moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), or in the alternative to dismiss for improper venue or transfer venue to the District of New Mexico. (Doc. 7.)

         DISCUSSION

         I. Legal Standard

         Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction. See Ziegler v. Indian River County, 64 F.3d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1995). If the district court does not hear testimony or make findings of fact and permits the parties to submit only written materials, the plaintiff meets this burden by making a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts. See Omeluk v. Langsten Slip & Batbyggeri A/S, 52 F.3d 267, 268 (9th Cir. 1995).

         Under this prima facie burden of proof, the plaintiff need only allege facts that if true would support personal jurisdiction over the defendant. See Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995). If the plaintiff survives the motion to dismiss under a prima facie burden of proof, however, the plaintiff still must prove the jurisdictional facts by a preponderance of the evidence at a preliminary hearing or at trial. Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 n.2 (9th Cir. 1977).

         II. Analysis

         A. Personal Jurisdiction Generally

         Arizona's long arm statute extends jurisdiction “to the maximum extent permitted by the . . . Constitution of the United States.” Thus, resolution of the issues here requires only a Due Process analysis. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.2(a); Davis v. Metro Prod., Inc., 885 F.2d 515, 520 (9th Cir. 1989).

         The Due Process Clause requires that nonresident defendants have sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum state so that the exercise of personal jurisdiction “does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). The Clause protects a defendant's “liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful ‘contacts, ties or relations.'” Omeluk, 52 F.3d at 269-70 (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72 (1985)).

         In making a “minimum contacts” analysis, “courts focus on ‘the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.'” Brink v. First Credit Resources, 57 F.Supp.2d 848, 860 (D. Ariz. 1999) (citing Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204 (1977)). Courts must determine whether the defendant's contacts with the forum are sufficient to support either “general” or “specific” jurisdiction. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-15 nn.8-9 (1984); Ziegler, 64 F.3d at 473. TPR alleges that this Court has both specific and general jurisdiction over MWH.

         B. General ...