Daniels v. Sadeq
| Decision Date | 09 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00783 |
| Parties | MARQUEETA DANIELS v. HUSSEIN RIYADH SADEQ, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Currently pending are three motions: the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and the motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process, which were filed on behalf of three of the four defendants, namely, Hussein Riyadh Sadeq, Great Lakes Logistics and Transportation, LLC, and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company (erroneously referred to in the plaintiff's complaint as Amerisure Insurance Company), and the alternative motion to transfer the action under 18 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which was brought by all four of the defendants, namely, Hussein Riyadh Sadeq, Great Lakes Logistics and Transportation, LLC, Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company, and Great West Casualty Company. (Rec. Doc. 10). Only the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is opposed. The motions were referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of this Court. Considering the evidence, the law, and the arguments of the parties, and for the reasons fully explained below, it is recommended that this action should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
The plaintiff, Marqueeta Daniels, contends that, on February 12, 2020, she was inside the cab of her 2013 International Prostar truck, which was parked at a Love's Truck Stop in Simpson County, Kentucky, when defendant Hussein Riyadh Sadeq, driving a tractor/trailer rig owned by his employer, defendant Great Lakes Logistics and Transportation, LLC, backed his truck into hers. The plaintiff filed suit in Louisiana state court, alleging that she was injured in the collision and that her truck was damaged. She alleged that Mr. Sadeq was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the collision, that Great Lakes is vicariously liable for his actions and omissions, and that defendants Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company and Great West Casualty Company insured Great Lakes, Mr. Sadeq, or both of them.
Three of the defendants - Mr. Sadeq, Great Lakes, and Amerisure - removed the action to this forum, with the consent of Great West, alleging that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction because the parties are diverse in citizenship and theamount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The defendants then filed the instant motions.1 (Rec. Doc. 10).
The defendants argued that Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company was not properly served because the plaintiff's petition erroneously referred to and requested service on Amerisure Insurance Company rather than Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company. The defendants further argued that the plaintiff's error mandates dismissal of her claims against Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company. This Court notes that the defendants did not set forth the applicable legal standard to be applied when such a motion is considered by the court or indicate that the plaintiff failed to correct the error after having been advised of the insurer's actual identity.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) provides for dismissal of an action for insufficient service of process. When service of process is challenged, the partyresponsible for effecting service must bear the burden of establishing its validity.2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 governs service of process generally, and Rule 4(m) provides:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court. . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service.
The burden is on the plaintiff to show good cause as to why service was not effected timely,3 and the plaintiff must demonstrate at least excusable neglect rather than simple inadvertence, a mistake by counsel, or ignorance of the applicable rules.4 Nonetheless, a court has discretion under Rule 4(m) to extend the time for service even in the absence of good cause.5
Obviously, Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company received actual notice of this lawsuit and has appeared herein for certain purposes. The similarity between the name used by the plaintiff in her petition and the name of the entity that actually issued the relevant insurance policy is such that the plaintiff could easily havemistaken one for the other. This is the type of situation that should have been addressed in a courteous telephone call to the plaintiff's counsel rather than in a written motion that required the expenditure of judicial resources. This Court admonishes the defendants' counsel to consider, in the future, whether the filing of such a motion is actually necessary or is nothing more than a needless waste of the court's time. This Court also notes that the plaintiff did not oppose this motion in its briefing. Nevertheless, this Court will recommend that, in the exercise of the court's discretion, the plaintiff be afforded an additional thirty days in which to properly serve - or request a waiver of service from - Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company.
Personal jurisdiction.
"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction."6 In order to resolve a case on the merits, a federal court must have both authority over the type of claim presented in the suit (subject-matter jurisdiction) and authority over the parties (personal jurisdiction).7 In this case, personal jurisdiction is at issue. Personal jurisdiction is an individual right that may be waived by a party's making a generalappearance in the district court.8 Here, the defendants argued that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over two of the defendants, Mr. Sadeq and Great Lakes.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) allows a defendant to assert a personal jurisdiction defense. Whether personal jurisdiction can be exercised over a nonresident defendant is a question of law.9 "Personal jurisdiction is an essential element of the jurisdiction of a district court, without which it is powerless to proceed to an adjudication."10 When, as in this case, a nonresident defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, the party invoking the power of the court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists.11 This creates an unusual scenario since the defendants in this case invoked the court's authority by removing the action then challenged the court's authority over two of them.
When the defendant's motion is decided without an evidentiary hearing, the opposing party is required to present facts sufficient to constitute a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction to satisfy the burden.12 A prima facie showing of personaljurisdiction may be established by the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, or exhibits of record.13 The court must accept the nonmoving party's uncontroverted allegations as true and resolve any factual conflicts in its favor.14 But the court is not required to credit conclusory allegations, even if left uncontroverted.15 If the court holds an evidentiary hearing, however, personal jurisdiction must be established by a preponderance of the admissible evidence.16 Here, no evidentiary hearing was held.
In determining whether personal jurisdiction is proper, a district court sitting in diversity, as in this case, applies the law of the forum state.17 Under the Louisiana Long-Arm Statute, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nonresident so long as the basis for such jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution.18 Consequently, the limits of the Louisiana Long-Arm Statue arecoextensive with the limits of constitutional due process.19 Therefore, this Court need only determine whether subjecting the defendants to suit in Louisiana would be consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.20 The exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant satisfies due process when: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of the forum state by establishing minimum contacts with that state, and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.21 In other words, due process is satisfied when the defendant's connection with Louisiana is such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in Louisiana.22 Personal jurisdiction must be assessed with regard to each defendant,23 and there are two types of personal jurisdiction: general personal jurisdiction and specific personal jurisdiction.
General personal jurisdiction exists when a defendant's affiliations with the forum state are so continuous and systematic as to render the defendant essentially at home there24 even if the cause of action did not arise from or relate to the defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum.25 For a natural person, general personal jurisdiction exists in the state of his or her domicile.26 The equivalent place for corporations are the states in which they were incorporated, have their principal places of business, and are considered to be at home.27 Limited liability companies are also subject to the "at home" test.28
In this case, the plaintiff's allegations fail to demonstrate the type of continuous and systematic contacts that would render any of the defendants "at home" in Louisiana. Mr. Sadeq resides in and is domiciled in Michigan.29 GreatLakes is also a Michigan citizen.30 Therefore, the court does not appear to have general personal jurisdiction over these defendants.
In exceptional cases, however, a corporate defendant's operations in another forum may be so substantial and of such a nature as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial