United States District Court, D. Arizona
Jose Rodriguez and Georgina Rodriguez, husband and wife, as parents of Daniel Rodriguez, Deceased, Plaintiffs,
v.
West Coast Aircraft Maintenance, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Honorable James A. Soto United States District Judge
Pending
before the Court are Defendant Textron Aviation
Inc.'s[1] Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction (Doc. 18), Defendant Pratt & Whitney Engine
Services, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction (Doc. 20), Defendant Pratt & Whitney Canada
Corp.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction (Doc. 30), Defendant Hartzell Propeller
Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction (Doc. 37), and Defendant Woodward Inc.'s
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc.
38).[2]
These motions are fully briefed.
PROCEDURAL
POSTURE/FACTS[3]
On
January 23, 2017, an aircraft crashed after some electrical
problem. There were two individuals in the plane, Jeff Green
and Daniel Rodriguez, both of whom perished as a result of
the crash. The day before the crash, the “West
Coast” Defendants sold the aircraft to KAAZ, LLC.
Daniel Rodriguez's parents brought this suit in the
Arizona Superior Court in Pima County. Plaintiffs allege that
the parts were defective and that there were safe and
practical alternatives, that work done on the aircraft was
done negligently, and that representations that the aircraft
was airworthy were false. Plaintiffs requests “all
damages recoverable under applicable law for the wrongful
death of Daniel Rodriguez.” (Doc. 1-2 p. 34 ¶
209.) This includes attorney fees. Textron asserts that the
amount in controversy is over $75, 000.
On
March 30, 2019, Textron removed this action to this Court.
(Doc. 1.) The other Defendants[4] either consented or joined the
removal. (Docs. 14, 16, 17, 25.)
Plaintiffs'
complaint states the following regarding the personal
jurisdiction: “The Pratt & Whitney Defendants are
subject to the jurisdiction of this Court because of their
systematic and continuous contacts in the State of Arizona
and because they have transacted business in the State of
Arizona, committed a tort in the State of Arizona, entered
into contracts with residents of the State of Arizona to do
work on the aircraft and caused injury in the State of
Arizona arising out of an act or omission. At all material
times, Pratt & Whitney Defendants either were engaged in
solicitation or service activities in the State of Arizona or
products, materials or things processed, serviced or
manufactured by the Pratt & Whitney Defendants were used
or consumed in the State of Arizona in the ordinary course of
trader use.” (Doc. 1-2 p. 10 ¶ 15.)[5]; “The
Defendants Hartzell is subject to the jurisdiction of this
Court because of their systematic and continuous contacts in
the State of Arizona and because it transacted business in
the State of Arizona, committed a tort in the State of
Arizona, entered into a contract with residents of the State
of Arizona to work on aircraft and cause injury in the State
of Arizona.” (Doc. 1-2 p. 11 ¶ 16); “The
Defendants Woodward is subject to the jurisdiction of this
Court because of their systematic and continuous contacts in
the State of Arizona and because it transacted business in
the State of Arizona, committed a tort in the State of
Arizona, entered into a contract with residents of the State
of Arizona to work on aircraft and cause injury in the State
of Arizona.” (Doc. 1-2 p. 11 ¶ 18); “The
Defendants [Textron[6] is subject to the jurisdiction of this
Court because of their systematic and continuous contacts in
the State of Arizona and because it transacted business in
the State of Arizona, committed a tort in the State of
Arizona, entered into a contract with residents of the State
of Arizona to work on aircraft and cause injury in the State
of Arizona.” (Doc. 1-2 p. 11 ¶ 17); “In
addition, all of the Defendants supply literature to aircraft
owners located within the State of Arizona and to mechanics,
fixed based operations and others to perform aircraft
maintenance in the State of Arizona for the purposes of
providing information and knowledge as to parts that can be
purchased for the repair or replacement of aircraft and their
components.” (Doc. 1-2 p. 10 ¶ 14).
STANDARD
The
burden is on plaintiffs to demonstrate that a particular
district court has personal jurisdiction over defendant.
Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir.
2008); Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374
F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004). If the court does not conduct
an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiffs must make a prima
facie showing. Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Tech.
Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2011);
Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1015. Uncontroverted
allegations in plaintiffs' complaint are taken as true
and conflicts over statements in affidavits are resolved in
the plaintiffs' favor. Boschetto, 539 F.3d at
1015; Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 800.
Personal
jurisdiction in this matter is governed by the general
jurisdictional statute, which applies the state's law
regarding personal jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(a)(A);
see Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int'l, Inc.,
874 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 2017) (evaluating personal
jurisdiction in a copyright infringement action). Arizona
authorizes the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the full
extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the United
States Constitution. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.2(a);
Wake Up and Ball LLC. v. Sony Music Entm't Inc.,
119 F.Supp.3d 944, 947 (D. Ariz. 2015).
Under
the Federal Due Process Clause, personal jurisdiction may be
found under two categories: general or specific. Daimler
AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 122 (2014); Picot v.
Weston, 780 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2015).
General
jurisdiction provides jurisdiction over defendant in matters
unrelated to its litigation-related contacts. Daimler
AG, 571 U.S. at 121-22. General jurisdiction requires
that defendants have contacts that are so “continuous
and systematic” as to render them “at home”
in the forum state. Id. at 138; Mavrix Photo,
Inc., 647 F.3d at 1223. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit suggests that courts look to
the contact's “[l]ongevity, continuity, volume,
economic impact, physical presence, and integration into the
[forum] state's regulatory or economic markets, ”
when considering this exacting standard. Mavrix Photo,
Inc., 647 F.3d at 1224 (first alteration in original)
(quoting Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433
F.3d 1163, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006)). Corporations are generally
“at home” where they are incorporated or have
their principal place of business. See Daimler AG,
571 U.S. at 139.
Specific
jurisdiction provides jurisdiction over defendants in forums
with case-linked contacts. Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S.
277, 283-84 (2014); Axiom Foods, Inc., 874 F.3d at
1068. Specific jurisdiction requires that courts ensure that
the defendant has “minimum contacts” with a forum
to ensure that litigating in the jurisdiction “does not
offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.'” Axiom Foods, Inc.,
874 F.3d at 1068 (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v.
Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)); see
Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1015-16. The crux of the inquiry
is the defendant's contact with the forum and not the
defendant's contacts with the plaintiffs or
plaintiffs' contacts with the forum. Walden, 571
U.S. at 284; Axiom Foods, Inc., 874 F.3d at 1068.
“[A] plaintiff[s'] contacts with the forum State
cannot be ‘decisive in determining whether the
defendant's due process rights are
violated[.]'” Walden, 571 U.S. at 279
(quoting Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320, 332 (1980)).
The
Ninth Circuit has created and implemented a three-prong test
to determine if a court has specific jurisdiction over a
defendant. Axiom Foods, Inc., 874 F.3d at 1068
(applying the Schwarzenegger test);
Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1016. “(1) the
defendant must either ‘purposefully direct his
activities' toward the forum or ‘purposefully
avail[ ] himself of the privileges of conducting activities
in the forum'; (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 reasonable.'” Axiom Foods, Inc.,
874 F.3d at 1068 (alteration in original) (quoting Dole
Food Co., Inc. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir.
2002)); see Picot, 780 F.3d at 1211. The first two
prongs are the plaintiffs' burden to show, while the
third prong requires the defendant to “present a
compelling case.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at
802 (citation omitted). Pendant personal jurisdiction may be
extended from claims with jurisdiction if the claims share a
“common nucleus of operative facts.”
Picot, 780 F.3d at 1211 (quoting Action
Embroidery Corp. v. Atl. Embroidery, Inc., 368 F.3d
1174, 1181 (9th Cir. 2004)). If plaintiffs' arguments
fail under the first prong, then the court is not obligated
to consider the remaining prongs. Pebble Beach Co. v.
Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2006).
The
first prong can be satisfied in two separate ways, depending
on the type of case. Axiom Foods, Inc., 874 F.3d at
1069 (applying the purposeful direction test for a case
alleging an intentional tort); Picot, 780 F.3d at
1212 (applying purposeful availment in an action sounding in
contract). When both contract and tort claims are presented,
if either test is ...