Garrett v. Prime Transp., Inc., Case No. 3:10-CV-297 RM

Decision Date05 July 2011
Docket NumberCase No. 3:10-CV-297 RM
PartiesJULIE E. GARRETT, Plaintiff v. PRIME TRANSPORT, INC., DALBO HOLDINGS, INC., DALBO, INC., and KYLE STORY, Defendants
CourtUnited States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
OPINION AND ORDER

This case represents the plaintiff Julie Garrett's fourth attempt to bring an action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a vehicular accident in Texas in January 2007. Ms. Garrett filed similiar suits in the Western District of Oklahoma, the Northern District of Texas, and the Eastern District of Arkansas. Each of those suits was dismissed. See Garrett v. Prime Transport, Inc., No. 5:08-CV-1138-R, slip op (W.D. Okl. July 23, 2009); Garrett v. Prime Transport, Inc., 2010 WL 1929616 (N.D. Tex. May 11, 2010); Garrett v. Prime Transport, Inc., 2011 WL 1627956 (E.D. Ark. Apri 29, 2011). Dalbo Holdings, Inc.'s, Dalbo, Inc.'s, and Kyle Story's motions to dismiss thepresent action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), (3) and (6) pend before the court.1 For the following reasons, the court grants the motions.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 15, 2007, Julie Garrett, an Oklahoma citizen, was involved in a vehicular accident in Fort Worth, Texas, with a semi tractor-trailer driven by Kyle Story, an Arkansas resident. Ms. Garrett filed suit in the Western District of Oklahoma against Mr. Story, Prime Transport, Inc. (an Indiana corporation and the alleged owner of the semi-tractor), Dalbo, Inc. (a Utah corporation, the alleged owner of the trailer, and a "wholly owned subsidiary of Dalbo Holdings, Inc."), and Dalbo Holdings, Inc. (a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Utah), seeking damages for the personal injuries she sustained as a result of that accident. The Oklahoma district court dismissed Ms. Garrett's claims against Prime Transport and Mr. Story without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction on July 23, 2009, Garrett v. Prime Transport, Inc., No. 5:08-CV-1138-R, Order at 10-13 (W.D. Okl. July 23, 2009), and Dalbo Holdings, Inc. and Dalbo, Inc. were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice three months later. Garrett v. Prime Transport, Inc., No. 5:08-CV-1138-R, Order Nunc Pro Tunc at 3 (W.D. Okl. Oct. 29, 2009).

Ms. Garrett filed her second suit against the defendants in the Northern District of Texas on February 22, 2010, seeking damages for personal injuries resulting from the January 2007 collision. The Texas district court found that Texas' two-year statute of limitations barred Ms. Garrett's claims, and dismissed the complaint against Prime Transport, Dalbo Holdings, and Dalbo, Inc. under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).2 Garrett v. Prime Transport, Inc., 2010 WL 1929616 (N.D. Tex. May 11, 2010).

On July 22, 2010, Ms. Garrett filed suit against the defendants in both the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Northern District of Indiana. The Arkansas district court found that it had no personal jurisdiction over Prime Transport, Dalbo Holdings, and Dalbo, Inc., and that Ms. Garrett hadn't complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l) and (m) with respect to service of process on all of the defendants, including Mr. Story, and dismissed the action without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and (5). Garrett v. Prime Transport, Inc., 2011 WL 1627956 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 29, 2011).

Dalbo Holdings and Dalbo, Inc. have moved to dismiss the current action for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a timely claim. Mr. Story's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process also pends.

II. DISCUSSION
A. Personal Jurisdiction

When a motion to dismiss in filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), the burden is on the plaintiff, as the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction, to establish the existence of personal jurisdiction. Purdue Research Foundation v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773, 782 and n. 11 (7th Cir. 2003); RAR, Inc. v. Turner Diesel, Ltd., 107 F.3d 1272, 1276 (7th Cir. 1997). The court can allow the parties to submit affidavits relating to the motion to dismiss and weigh those affidavits in deciding whether it has personal jurisdiction. See Weidner Communications, Inc. v. H.R.H. Prince Bandar Al Faisal, 859 F.2d 1302, 1306 n.7 (7th Cir. 1988); Nelson by Carson v. Park Industries, Inc., 717 F.2d 1120, 1123 (7th Cir. 1983). It also can take judicial notice of matters of public record, including the opinions and orders issued by the district courts in Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas. United States v. Wood, 925 F.2d 1580, 1582 (7th Cir. 1991). When the court's decision is based on the submission of written materials, without an evidentiary hearing, "the [plaintiff's] burden of poof is met by a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction is conferred under the relevant jurisdictional statute . . . [and] the party asserting jurisdiction is entitled to the resolution in its favor of all disputes concerning relevant facts presented in the record." Nelson by Carson v. Park Industries, Inc., 717 F.2d at 1123; see also Purdue Research Foundation v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d at 782; Hyatt Int'l Corp. v. Coco, 302 F.3d 707, 713 (7th Cir. 2002).

A federal court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a diversity case only if a court of the state in which it sits would have such jurisdiction. Citadel Group Ltd. v. Washington Regional Medical Center, 536 F.3d 757, 760 (7th Cir. 2008). "The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment sets the outer boundaries of a state tribunal's authority to proceed against a defendant," Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, ___ S.Ct. ___, 2011 WL 2518815 at *6 (U.S. June 27, 2011), and requires that an out-of-state defendant have "certain minimum contacts with [the forum State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,'" before a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). Indiana's long-arm statute, Indiana Trial Rule 4.4(A), identifies eight acts that serve as a basis for personal jurisdiction, and provides that "a court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitutions of this state or the United States," thus merging the two inquiries. See Int'l Medical Group, Inc. v. American Arbitration Assn., Inc., 312 F.3d 833, 846 (7th Cir. 2003); Anthem Ins. Cos., Inc. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 730 N.E.2d 1227, 1232 (Ind. 2000).

Personal jurisdiction can be specific or general. The court has specific personal jurisdiction when the defendant's contacts with the forum state relate to the subject matter of the lawsuit. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984); Anthem Ins. Cos., Inc. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp.,730 N.E.2d at 1234. The inquiry in such cases is whether there was "some act by which the defendant purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, ___ S.Ct. ___, 2011 WL

2518815 at *6 (U.S. June 27, 2011) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958)). "The ultimate constitutional standard for the exercise of specific jurisdiction has been the same since the Supreme Court first abandoned strict territorial jurisdiction: is it fair and reasonable to call the defendant into the state's courts to answer the plaintiff's claim?" uBID, Inc. v. GoDaddy Group, Inc., 623 F.3d 421, 426 (7th Cir. 2010); see Burger King Corp v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 (1985); World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980); International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 317 (1945).

When the cause of action isn't related to the defendant's activities in the forum state, the court may exercise general jurisdiction if the nonresident has had "continuous and systematic" contact with the state. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. at 414-415; Int'l Medical Group, Inc. v. American Arbitration Assn., Inc., 312 F.3d at 846. "[T]he constitutional requirement for general jurisdiction is 'considerably more stringent' than that required for specific jurisdiction." Purdue Research Foundation v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d at 787 (quoting United States v. Swiss American Bank, Ltd., 274 F.3d 610, 618 (1st Cir. 2001)). "[The] contacts must be so extensive to be tantamount to [the defendant] being constructively present in the state to such a degree that it wouldbe fundamentally fair to require it to answer in an Indiana court in any litigation arising out of any transaction or occurrence taking place anywhere in the world." Purdue Research Foundation v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d at 787 (emphasis in original); see also, uBID, Inc. v. GoDaddy Group, Inc., 623 F.3d at 426; Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693, 701 (7th Cir. 2010).

The complaint alleges:

2. That Defendant, Kyle Story, while a citizen and resident of the State of Arkansas, had voluntarily entered into an employment contract with an Indiana corporation, and was on the date of the subject incident acting as an agent, employee, and/or servant of Defendant, Prime Transport, Inc., thereby purposefully availing himself of the laws of the State of Indiana, and therefore this Court has jurisdiction and venue over the Defendant, Kyle Story.
4. . . . That the Defendant, DALBO, conducts or has conducted business in the State of Indiana and throughout the State of Indiana at relevant times thus giving this Court jurisdiction and venue over the Defendant, Dalbo.3

The Dalbo defendants say they lack the minimum contacts with Indiana necessary to support specific or general personal jurisdiction, citing Int'l Medical Group, Inc. v. American Arbitration Assn., Inc., 312 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 2002), and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT