Aclin v. PD-RX Pharm. Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 June 2016
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-00561-R
• Parties: Kurt Aclin and Beverly Aclin, husband and wife; et al., Plaintiffs, v. PD-RX Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma

189 F.Supp.3d 1294

Kurt Aclin and Beverly Aclin, husband and wife; et al., Plaintiffs,

v.PD-RX Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-00561-R

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma.

Signed June 1, 2016

Matthew J. Sill, Sill Law Group, Edmond, OK, for Plaintiffs.

Scarlett Adams, pro se.

Robert H. Alexander, Jr., Robert W. Ivy, Law Office of Robert H. Alexander Jr. PC, Carolyn Taylor, Tammara N. Bokmuller, Cary E. Hiltgen, J. R. Baker, Katie R. McCune, Lance C. Cook, Hiltgen & Brewer, John M. Bunting, Thomas G. Wolfe, Phillips Murrah PC-101, Emily J. Wagner, Christian S. Huckaby, Jon Epstein, Seth A. Day, Hall Estill, Oklahoma City, OK, Audra J. Ferguson-Allen, Mary N. Larimore, Ice Miller LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Jennifer R. Annis, Atkinson Haskins Nellis Holemen Phipps Brittingham & Gladd, Micah J. Petersen, Atkinson Haskins Nellis Brittingham Gladd & Fiasco, Thomas E. Steichen, Vani R. Singhal, McAfee & Taft, Tulsa, OK, Kai Peters, Gordon & Rees LLP, San Francisco, CA, Lori G. Cohen, Victoria D. Lockard, Greenberg Traurig, Atlanta, GA, F. Thomas Cordell, Jr., Amanda R. Mullins, Frailey Chaffin Cordell Perryman Sterkel McCalla & Brown LLP, Chickasha, OK, Bryan T. Pratt, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Kansas City, MO, Tony M. Diab, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Irvine, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER¹

DAVID L. RUSSELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before this Court are several motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Doc. Nos. 5, 25, 26, 63, 117, 118, 176.² After reviewing the parties' briefs, the Court agrees it lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motions to dismiss³ and DISMISSES Plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety, thereby mooting Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss and/or for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 116). The Court further denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend/Correct, Doc. No. 144, as MOOT.⁴

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs in this products-liability action allege injuries resulting from the use of propoxyphene-containing products that Defendants manufactured, marketed, distributed, or sold. Doc. No. 1-1. Admittedly, no Plaintiff is an Oklahoma resident. Doc. No. 175, at 8. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs contend that this Court may exercise specific and general jurisdiction based on Defendants' in-state activity.

II. CONSIDERATION OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BEFORE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Both parties present jurisdictional challenges. Defendants argue that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction while the Plaintiff argues the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. The Court may evaluate personal jurisdiction before subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the holding in Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co. :

... in cases removed from state court to federal court, as in cases originating in federal court, there is no unyielding jurisdictional hierarchy. Customarily, a federal court first resolves doubts about its jurisdiction over the subject matter, but there are circumstances in which a district court appropriately accords priority to a personal jurisdiction inquiry.

526 U.S. 574, 584, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 143 L.Ed.2d 760 (1999). Such circumstances include where personal jurisdiction presents straightforward issues, while subject-matter jurisdiction raises issues that are difficult, novel, or complex. Id. at 588, 119 S.Ct. 1563 (no abuse of discretion to address straightforward personal jurisdictional question before difficult and novel subject matter jurisdiction issue); Gadlin v. Sybron Int'l Corp. , 222 F.3d 797, 799 (10th Cir.2000) ("a court does not abuse its discretion if it addresses personal jurisdiction first in a case where alleged defects in subject matter jurisdiction raise difficult questions but the personal jurisdiction issue is straightforward and presents no complex questions of state law"); Browning v. Salmon , 143 Fed.Appx. 917, 920 n. 1 (10th Cir.2005) (ruling on personal jurisdiction mooted appellant's argument regarding subject-matter jurisdiction) (citing id. )

Upon review of the parties' arguments regarding both jurisdictional issues, the Court deems it appropriate to address personal jurisdiction first. The personal jurisdiction question presents straightforward issues regarding the sufficiency of contacts and the consequences of registration to do business. Conversely, subject-matter jurisdiction presents complex issues, including the doctrine of fraudulent misjoinder, a doctrine the Tenth Circuit has twice declined to adopt or reject.⁵ See Parson v. Johnson & Johnson , 749 F.3d 879, 893 (10th Cir.2014) (declining to address appellant's alternative jurisdictional argument which required determination on whether to recognize the doctrine of fraudulent misjoinder of plaintiffs); Lafalier v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 391 Fed.Appx. 732, 736 (10th Cir.2010) (declining to decide whether to adopt the doctrine, as it would not change the result in the case). Moreover, courts who have adopted the doctrine have not applied it uniformly.⁶

Given these considerations, the Court finds it appropriate and efficient to address personal jurisdiction first.

III. PERSONAL JURISDICTION STANDARD

"Whether a federal court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a diversity action is determined by the law of the forum state." Yarbrough v. Elmer Bunker & Assocs. , 669 F.2d 614, 616 (10th Cir.1982) (citations omitted). "The test for exercising long-arm jurisdiction in Oklahoma is to determine first whether the exercise of jurisdiction is authorized by statute and, if so, whether such exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with constitutional requirements of due process." Luckett v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. , 618 F.2d 1373, 1385–86 (10th Cir.1980) (citations omitted). Because the Oklahoma long-arm statute extends jurisdiction to the maximum extent permitted by due process, "this two-part inquiry collapses into a single due process analysis." Rambo v. Am. S. Ins. Co. , 839 F.2d 1415, 1416 (10th Cir.1988) (quoting OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 12 § 2004(F) ("A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis consistent with the Constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States.")).

"The Due Process Clause protects an individual'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.’ " Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz , 471 U.S. 462, 471–72, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (citation and footnote omitted). Accordingly, a court "may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist ‘minimum contacts' between the defendant and the forum State." World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson , 444 U.S. 286, 291, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980) (citation omitted). The minimum-contacts test may be met by establishing either general or specific jurisdiction. Employers Mutual Cas. Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc. , 618 F.3d 1153, 1159 (10th Cir.2010). If the minimum-contacts test is met, the Court must determine if the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants would offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice," or, instead, is "reasonable." OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada , 149 F.3d 1086, 1091 (10th Cir.1998) (quoting Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of California , 480 U.S. 102, 113, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987) ).

The burden to establish personal jurisdiction is on the plaintiff. Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc. , 514 F.3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir.2008). Because the parties have engaged in jurisdictional discovery but there has been no evidentiary hearing, Plaintiffs need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. Anzures v. Flagship Rest. Grp. , 819 F.3d 1277, 1279, 2016 WL 1612789, at *2 (10th Cir. Apr. 22, 2016) (following limited jurisdictional discovery but no evidentiary hearing, plaintiff must only make a prima facie showing). The Court takes "as true all well-pled (that is, plausible, non-conclusory, and non-speculative ...) facts alleged in plaintiffs' complaint." Dudnikov , 514 F.3d at 1070. All factual disputes are resolved in Plaintiffs' favor. Id.

IV. SPECIFIC JURISDICTION

The exercise of specific jurisdiction over a defendant in a tort-based action is proper if (1) "the defendant purposefully directed its activities at residents of the forum state" and (2) "the plaintiff's injury arose from those purposefully directed activities." Newsome v. Gallacher , 722 F.3d 1257, 1264 (10th Cir.2013) (citing Dudnikov , 514 F.3d at 1070 ) (emphasis added). A defendant purposefully directs its activities if it commits an intentional action, "expressly aimed at the forum state," with "knowledge that the brunt of the injury would be felt in the forum state." Id. (citing Dudnikov , 514 F.3d at 1072 ). To determine if an injury arises out of those activities, courts apply either the but-for or the proximate-cause test. Id. at 1269. Under the but-for test, "any event in the causal chain leading to the plaintiff's injury is sufficiently related to the claim to support the exercise of specific jurisdiction." Id. By contrast, the proximate-cause test "is considerably more restrictive and calls for courts to examine whether any of the defendant's contacts with the forum are relevant to the merits of the plaintiff's claim." Id. While the Tenth Circuit has not chosen one over the other, both tests require a "true causal element," between defendants' forum contacts and the litigation. Id. ;⁷ see also Shrader v. Biddinger , 633 F.3d 1235, 1240, 1246 n. 8 (10th Cir.2011) (discussing Dudnikov , 514 F.3d at 1078–79 ) (discussing the "causal aspect" of "arising out of"); see also Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown , 564 U.S. 915, 919, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011) ("specific jurisdiction requires an ‘affiliatio[n] between the forum and the underlying controversy’ ") (quoting von Mehren & Trautman,...