Catipovic v. Turley, No. C 11-3074-MWB

• Court: United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
• Writing for the Court: MARK W. BENNETT
• Parties: BRANIMIR CATIPOVIC, Plaintiff, v. MARK TURLEY, RONALD FAGEN, and FAGEN, INC., Defendants.
• Decision Date: 08 June 2012
• Docket Number: No. C 11-3074-MWB

BRANIMIR CATIPOVIC, Plaintiff,
v.
MARK TURLEY, RONALD FAGEN, and FAGEN, INC., Defendants.

No. C 11-3074-MWB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

Dated: June 8, 2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................3

A. Factual Background...............................................................3

B. Procedural Background...........................................................8

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS......................................................................11

A. Turley's Motion To Dismiss....................................................11

1. Arguments of the parties................................................11
2. Applicable standards.....................................................13

a. Principles of personal jurisdiction............................13
b. "General" personal jurisdiction...............................14
c. "Specific" personal jurisdiction...............................15
d. The role of contracts in the personal jurisdiction analysis.............................................................16
e. Rule 12(b)(2) standards for dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.............................................18

3. Application of the standards...........................................20
4. Summary ................................................................... 22

B. The Fagen Defendants' Motion To Dismiss.................................23

1. Dismissal for improper venue..........................................23

a. Arguments of the parties .......................................23
b. Applicable standards ............................................25

i. The applicable venue statute...............................26

Page 2

ii. Venue based on § 1391(a)(2).............................27
iii. Standards for dismissal for improper venue..........29

c. Application of the standards...................................32

i. Venue with Turley present .................................33
ii. Venue with Turley absent .................................33

d. Summary...........................................................36

C. Failure To State A Claim.......................................................37

1. Arguments of the parties................................................37
2. Analysis .................................................................... 39

a. Applicable standards ............................................39
b. Application of the standards...................................42

i. Elements of the claim.......................................42
ii. Pleading of the claim ......................................44
iii. The Fagen Defendants' further challenges...........45

c. Summary...........................................................47

III. CONCLUSION............................................................................47

A former Iowa resident seeks to recover damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment from an Irish citizen, and damages for unjust enrichment from a Minnesota citizen and a Minnesota company, arising from the failure of an alleged partnership to develop ethanol production facilities in Eastern Europe. The Irish defendant has moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for lack of personal jurisdiction over him, and the Minnesota defendants have moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), for improper venue, and Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Thus, the pending

Page 3

motions turn, at least in the first instance, on whether this forum is the proper one in which the plaintiff may bring his claims.

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Factual Background

Ordinarily, "when ruling on a defendant's motion to dismiss, a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)). Thus, the factual background to a motion to dismiss must ordinarily be drawn solely from the plaintiffs' factual allegations. See Ashanti v. City of Golden Valley, 666 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2012) ("[M]atters outside the pleading may not be considered in deciding a Rule 12[(b)(6)] motion to dismiss"). However, on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if the court does not conduct a hearing, the court may consider the pleadings, any affidavits, and any exhibits supporting or opposing the motion. See K-V Pharm. Co. v. J. Uriach & CIA, S.A., 648 F.3d 588, 592 (8th Cir. 2011); Pangaea, Inc. v. Flying Burrito, L.L.C., 647 F.3d 741, 745 (8th Cir. 2011). Thus, where indicated, I have included pertinent facts from sources other than the pleadings in this statement of the factual background to the parties' dispute.

Plaintiff Branimir Catipovic is a naturalized citizen of the United States who was born in Croatia. At the times relevant to this dispute, he was domiciled in Iowa, and working as a medical doctor specializing in internal medicine, allergy/immunology, at the Veteran's Administration Hospital (VA Hospital) in Mason City, Iowa. In his Amended Complaint and a Declaration (docket no. 20-1) filed in resistance to one of the pending motions to dismiss, Catipovic avers that he is now domiciled in

Page 4

Massachusetts. Defendant Mark Turley is a citizen of Ireland who, among other business activities, provides start-up capital to and invests in new business ventures. Defendant Roland Fagen is a citizen of and domiciled in Minnesota, and defendant Fagen, Inc., (FI), is a Minnesota corporation, headquartered in Granite Falls, Minnesota, engaged in commercial and industrial contracting and engineering services, focusing primarily on the ethanol plant industry. In the motion to dismiss by Fagen and FI, Fagen asserts that he is the executive vice president of FI.

Catipovic alleges that, while working as a medical doctor at the VA Hospital in Mason City in 2005-2006, he became aware of an ethanol production facility located in Mason City. He then began to study ethanol production, in part, because of his knowledge and understanding of the agricultural and environmental similarities between Iowa and Eastern Europe. In 2006, he toured the Mason City ethanol...