Blank v. Tomorrow PCS, LLC
| Decision Date | 28 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO: 16-11092 SECTION: "S" (3) |
| Parties | LINDSAY BLANK v. TOMORROW PCS, LLC, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Tomorrow Telecom, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #49) is DENIED.
This matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Tomorrow Telecom, Inc. Tomorrow Telecom argues that it is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Louisiana, and that plaintiff, Lindsay Blank, failed to state a claim against it for which relief can be granted.
In March 2015, defendant, Tomorrow PCS, LLC ("TPCS"), hired Blank to work as a customer service representative selling cellular telephones and service plans at various TPCS stores in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. TPCS was formed under Louisiana law, and has an Exclusive Master Dealer Contract with MetroPCS Michigan, LLC to sell MetroPCS products exclusively in Louisiana. Blank alleges that she was paid $8.50 per hour, even for overtime hours in excess of 40 hours per week.
On June 21, 2016, Blank filed this action alleging that TPCS1 violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), codified at 29 U.S.C. § 207(a), by failing to pay her and other similarly situated employees one-and-one-half times of their regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Blank's complaint stated that she sought to proceed as acollective action under section 216(b) the FLSA. On April 19, 2017, the court granted Blank's motion for conditional class certification of an opt-in class consisting of:
All individuals who worked or are working for Tomorrow PCS, LLC as Sales Associates during the previous three years and who are eligible for overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 207, and who did not receive full overtime compensation.
On May 9, 2017, Blank filed an opposed motion for leave to file an amended complaint seeking to add Tomorrow Telecom as a defendant, remove Park as a defendant, add allegations of money being unlawfully deducted from the class members' paychecks in violation of state law, and add class allegations regarding the alleged state law violations. The United States Magistrate Judge granted Blank's motion for leave in the interest of judicial economy after Blank stated that she would file a separate suit against Tomorrow Telecom if the motion for leave were denied.
In the amended complaint, Blank alleges that Tomorrow Telecom has a master dealer contract with MetroPCS that permits Tomorrow Telecom to use sub-dealers to sell MetroPCS products in various states. Blank alleges that Tomorrow Telecom sells MetroPCS products in Texas and TPCS is a sub-dealer of Tomorrow Telecom that sells MetroPCS products in Louisiana. Blank alleges that Tomorrow Telecom and TPCS have common ownership, and that Tomorrow Telecom exercises managerial control over, and issues the pay for, the TPCS service representatives. Thereafter, Tomorrow Telecom filed the instant motion to dismiss arguing that it is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Louisiana because it does not own or have control over TPCS and that Blank failed to state claims against it under the FLSA or Louisiana law.
Personal jurisdiction "is an essential element of the jurisdiction of a district court, without which it is powerless to proceed to an adjudication." Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 119 S.Ct. 1563, 1570 (1999). Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a defendant can move to dismiss an action against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. "The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing [personal] jurisdiction but is required to present only prima facie evidence." Seiferth v. Helicopteros Attuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266, 270 (5th Cir. 2006). The allegations of the complaint, except as controverted by opposing affidavits, are taken as true and all factual conflicts are resolved in the plaintiff's favor. Thompson v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 755 F.2d 1162, 1165 (5th Cir. 1985). In resolving a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the court may consider "affidavits, interrogatories, depositions, oral testimony, or any combination of the recognized methods of discovery." Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 2002) (quotations omitted).
Personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is determined by the state's long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause. ICEE Distrib., Inc. v. J&J Snack Foods, 325 F.3d 586, 591 (5th Cir. 2003). Because Louisiana's long-arm statute extends to the limits of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the inquiry is whether subjecting a defendant to personal jurisdiction in Louisiana would offend due process. See Dickson Marine Inc. v. Panalpina, Inc., 179 F.3d 331, 335 (5th Cir. 1999). Due process is not offended if the defendant has "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158 (1945) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Personal jurisdiction may be either specific jurisdiction or general jurisdiction. "General jurisdiction allows a court to exercise personal jurisdiction generally based on any claim, including claims unrelated to the defendant's contacts" with the forum state. James M. Wagstaffe, Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, § 10-V (2017). A court has general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant "to hear any and all claims against [it] when [its] contacts with the state are so 'continuous and systematic' as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum." Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746, 761 (2014) (quotations omitted). The "test is a difficult one to meet, requiring extensive contacts between a defendant and a forum." Submersible Sys., Inc. v. Perforadora Cent., S.A. de C.V., 249 F.3d 413, 419 (5th Cir. 2001). Blank does not argue that Tomorrow Telecome has continuous and systematic contacts with Louisiana that would subject it to general personal jurisdiction in the State. Therefore, only specific personal jurisdiction is at issue.
Specific jurisdiction exists when a nonresident defendant "has purposefully directed its activities at the forum State and litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities." Panda Brandywine Corp. v. Patomac Elec. Power Co., 253 F.3d 865, 868 (5th Cir. 2001) (quotations omitted). "In other words, there must be 'an affiliation between the forum and the underling controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State's regulation.'" Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal. S.F. Cty., 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1780 (2017) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011)). "For this reason, 'specific jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction.'" Id. (quoting Goodyear, 131 S.Ct. at 2851). Thus, specific jurisdiction is a claim-specific inquiry, meaning that "[a] plaintiff bringing multiple claims that arise out of different forumcontacts of the defendant must establish specific jurisdiction for each claim." Seiferth, 472 F.3d at 274. Further, each plaintiff must establish specific jurisdiction as to each of its claims against the defendant. Bristol-Myers Squibb, 137 S.Ct. at 1782.
The event supporting the exercise of specific jurisdiction "must arise out of contacts that the 'defendant [it]self' creates with the forum State." Walden v. Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1122 (2014) (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2184 (1985)). Actions, or a single act, by a nonresident defendant whereby it "purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws[,]" can establish minimum contacts. Burger King, 105 S.Ct. at 2183 (citations and footnotes omitted). "The non-resident's purposeful availment must be such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the forum state." Ruston Gas Turbines, Inc. v. Donaldson Co., Inc, 9 F.3d 415, 419 (5th Cir. 1993). "The purposeful availment inquiry is intended 'to assure that personal jurisdiction is not premised solely upon a defendant's 'random, isolated, or fortuitous' contacts with the forum state.'" James M. Wagstaffe, Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, § 10-VII (2017) (quoting A Corp. v. All Am. Plumbing, Inc., 812 F.3d 564, 60 (1st Cir. 2016)). Moreover, "the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum." Walden, 134 S.Ct at 1122.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applies a three-step analysis to determine specific jurisdiction:
(1) whether the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state, i.e., whether it purposely directed its activities toward the forum state or purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting activities there; (2) whether the plaintiff's cause of action arises out of or result from the defendant's forum-related contacts; and (3) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is fair and reasonable.
Seiferth, 472 F.3d at 271. "If the plaintiff successfully satisfies the first two prongs, the burden shifts to the defendant to defeat jurisdiction by showing that its exercise would be unfair or unreasonable." Id. In conducting the fairness inquiry, the court examines "(1) the burden on the nonresident defendant, (2) the forum state's interests, (3) the plaintiff's interest in securing relief, (4) the interest of the interstate judicial system in the efficient administration of justice, and (5) the shared interest of the several...
To continue reading
Request your trial