Agape Broadcasters Inc. v. Sampson
| Decision Date | 28 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 6:19-CV-01099 |
| Citation | 489 F.Supp.3d 550 |
| Parties | AGAPE BROADCASTERS INC. v. ESTATE OF Marcus Todd SAMPSON THROUGH its administratrix, Valerie MATIX, Mackem Aviation, LLC (d/b/a Space Aviators), David L. Norman, Unidentified Aircraft Maintenance Company, Garmin International, Inc., and Tri-Star Aviation, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Troy Houston Middleton, IV, Daniel A. Kramer, Hunter W. Lundy, Lundy Lundy et al., Lake Charles, LA, for Agape Broadcasters Inc.
Leo R. McAloon, III, Nicholas Stephen Bergeron, Gieger Laborde & Laperouse, New Orleans, LA, for Mackem Aviation LLC, David L. Norman.
Christopher K. Ulfers, Covert J. Geary, William J. Joyce, Jones Walker, New Orleans, LA, for Garmin International Inc.
D. Russell Holwadel, Heather England Reznik, Bruce R. Hoefer, Jr., Lydia H. Toso, Phillip J. Rew, Adams Hoefer et al., New Orleans, LA, for Valerie Matix.
MEMORANDUM RULING
The present matter before the court is a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by defendant Garmin International, Inc. [ECF No. 17]. Garmin allegedly manufactured and sold the GPS unit installed on an aircraft that collided with a radio tower owned and operated by the plaintiff. Garmin's motion asserts that the Court lacks specific and general personal jurisdiction over Garmin and, accordingly, that the claims against Garmin should be dismissed. As explained below, the Court GRANTS Garmin's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.
Plaintiff Agape Broadcasters, Inc. owns and operates a Christian radio station broadcasting to Southwest Louisiana and East Texas as KAJN Radio. (Complaint [ECF No. 1] at ¶ 2.1). KAJN's broadcasts out of a studio in Crowley, Louisiana and transmitted its signal through the 1,800-foot-high TV 3 Tall Tower located in Kaplan, Louisiana. (Id. at ¶ 2.3). On August 31, 2018, a Piper aircraft model PA-28R piloted by Marcus Todd Sampson collided with the TV 3 Tall Tower. (Id. at ¶ 2.4). Sampson and his daughter were killed in the collision. (Id. ). KAJN's Broadcasting tower, microwave dish, and transmission line were destroyed in the collision. (Id. at 2.5). Agape alleges that, prior to the destruction of its broadcast tower, KAJN's signal reached nearly 1.5 million people in the area bordered by Lake Charles, Alexandria, Lafayette, and Baton Rouge. (Id. at ¶ 2.6). After the destruction of its antenna, KAJN's broadcast area was limited to just Crowley, Jennings, Eunice, and Opelousas, with limited coverage in Lafayette. (Id. ). At the time Agape commenced the present suit, KAJN had not obtained a replacement tower and facility with the same coverage as the TV 3 Tall Tower destroyed in the collision.
Agape commenced this action against Sampson's estate through its administratrix Valerie Matix, David L. Norman (the owner of the airplane), Mackem Aviation, LLC d/b/a Space City Aviators (the flying club that arranged Sampson's use of the aircraft), an "unidentified aircraft maintenance company" allegedly employed to perform maintenance work on the aircraft, Garmin, and Tri-Star Aviation, Inc. (Id. at ¶¶ 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.9, 3.12). With respect to Garmin, Agape alleges that the aircraft was equipped with a Garmin model 530 GPS unit manufactured and sold by Garmin. (Id. at ¶ 3.9). Agape alleges that this unit "contains an obstacle avoidance system which, if functioning properly, is designed to alert the aircraft pilot using it to potential obstacles in his or her flight path." (Id. ). According to Agape, the Garmin GPS unit installed in the aircraft malfunctioned and failed to alert Sampson that the TV 3 Tall Tower was in his flight path. (Id. at ¶ 3.10). Agape alleges that the failure of the Garmin GPS unit was a violation of the Louisiana Products Liability Act. (Id. at ¶ 3.11). Specifically, Agape contends that the unit was "unreasonably dangerous in construction or composition," and was "unreasonably dangerous in failing to conform to express warranty made by the manufacturer about the product." (Id. ).
Garmin then filed the present Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Garmin contends that it is a Kansas corporation with its principal place of business in Olathe, Kansas. ( .
Where, as here, jurisdiction is grounded on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant if the forum state's long-arm statute confers personal jurisdiction over that non-resident defendant and if the exercise of personal jurisdiction satisfies the requirements of due process under the United States Constitution. McFadin v. Gerber , 587 F.3d 753, 759 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Moncrief Oil Int'l, Inc. v. OAO Gazprom et al. , 481 F.3d 309, 311 (5th Cir. 2007) ). The reach of the Louisiana Long-Arm Statute is co-extensive with the limits of due process under the Constitution. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. v. Avco Corp. et al. , 513 So. 2d 1188, 1192 (La. 1987). As a result, the jurisdictional analysis under the Louisiana Long-Arm Statute collapses into a single inquiry of whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process. Id. ; see also In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig. , 753 F.3d 521, 546 (5th Cir. 2014). Where the court decides a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without a hearing, the plaintiff need only demonstrate a prima facie basis for personal jurisdiction. Wilson v. Belin , 20 F.3d 644, 648 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 930, 115 S.Ct. 322, 130 L.Ed.2d 282 (1994) ; Johnston v. Multidata Systems, Intern. Corp. , 523 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2008).
A plaintiff can demonstrate a prima facie basis for personal jurisdiction through the allegations contained in the complaint. However, if the defendant disputes the factual grounds for personal jurisdiction, the district court may consider the record before it, including "affidavits, interrogatories, depositions, oral testimony, or any combination of the recognized methods of discovery." Quick Technologies, Inc. v. Sage Group PLC , 313 F.3d 338, 344 (5th Cir. 2002). In judging whether a plaintiff has met his or her prima facie burden, a court must construe all uncontroverted allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true. Johnston , 523 F.3d at 609. If the defendant controverts factual allegations in the complaint with affidavits or other evidence, the plaintiff cannot rest solely on the controverted allegations in the complaint but must counter the defendant's evidence with affidavits or other evidence. ConocoPhillips Co. v. Jump Oil Co. , 948 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1276 (N.D. Okla. 2013). Disputes in the parties’ evidence must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor. Johnston , 523 F.3d at 609 ; Kelly Law Firm, P.C. v. An Attorney for You , 679 F Supp. 2d 755, 762 (S.D. Tex. 2009). Personal jurisdiction can be based on either "general jurisdiction" or "specific jurisdiction." Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co. , 921 F.3d 522, 539 (5th Cir. 2019).
A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a defendant if the plaintiff's claims "arise out of" or are "related to the defendant's contacts with the forum." Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall , 466 U.S. 408, 414, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). The Fifth Circuit follows a three-step inquiry in determining whether specific jurisdiction exists. First, a court must determine whether a defendant has "minimum contacts" with the forum state. Nuovo Pignone, SpA v. STORMAN ASIA M/V , 310 F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir. 2002). In assessing a defendant's minimum contacts, courts look to whether the defendant "purposefully directed its activities toward the forum state or purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting activities there." Id. Second, a court must determine whether a plaintiff's claims arise out of or result from the defendant's forum-related contacts. Id. Third, the court must determine "whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is fair and reasonable." Id.
The parties’ arguments on specific jurisdiction focus on the second requirement for specific jurisdiction: that Garmin's "suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State." Best Little Promo House in Texas, LLC v. Yankee Pennysaver, Inc. , No. 14-cv-1824, 2014 WL 5431630 at *4 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2014). In other words, Garmin's contacts with Louisiana must be the contacts that give rise to Agape's causes of action. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1781, 198 L.Ed.2d 395 (2017). Garmin contents that Agape has not alleged any facts showing a connection between Garmin's suit-related contacts and Louisiana. (Garmin's Rule 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 17] at 5). According to Garmin, the suit-related conduct at issue is the sale of a defective Garmin GPS unit installed in an airplane that collided with Agape's tower when the GPS unit allegedly malfunctioned. (Id. ) However, Garmin points out that plaintiff has not alleged that the GPS unit that malfunctioned and allegedly contributed to the collision was sold in Louisiana or installed on an aircraft in Louisiana. According to Garmin, "the fact that the incident occurred in Louisiana, and that the Garmin GPS unit was allegedly onboard the aircraft at the time, does not give rise to specific jurisdiction over Garmin in [Louisiana]." (Id. ) (citing In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig. , No. 09-2047, 2017 WL 5971622 (E.D. La. Nov. 30, 2017) ).
Plaintiff, on the other hand, relies primarily on the "stream of commerce" doctrine of specific jurisdiction....
To continue reading
Request your trial