United States District Court, D. Arizona
MURRAY SNOW CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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
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
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
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.)
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).
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).
Personal Jurisdiction Generally
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).
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)).
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