Jesski v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Corp.

• Decision Date: 10 July 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-CV-2070-CJW-MAR,19-CV-2070-CJW-MAR
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
• Parties: HANNAH JESSKI, as Executrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of Dixie Blazier; GLENDA MUNDIS and ROBERT MUNDIS, Plaintiffs, v. DAKOTA, MINNESOTA & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION and CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendants. DAKOTA, MINNESOTA & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION, Third Party Plaintiff, v. CARLA J. SIPE, as Executrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of James D. Blazier, Third Party Defendant.

HANNAH JESSKI, as Executrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of Dixie Blazier;

GLENDA MUNDIS and ROBERT MUNDIS, Plaintiffs, v. DAKOTA, MINNESOTA & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATIONand CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendants.

DAKOTA, MINNESOTA & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION, Third Party Plaintiff, v. CARLA J. SIPE, as Executrix

and Personal Representative of the Estate of James D. Blazier, Third Party Defendant.

No. 19-CV-2070-CJW-MAR

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

July 10, 2020

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendant Canadian Pacific Railway Company's ("CPRC") Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. (Doc. 41). Plaintiffs filed a timely resistance to defendant's motion, and in the alternative requested the Court approve their request for jurisdictional discovery. (Doc. 45). CPRC timely replied to plaintiffs' resistance. (Doc. 46). The parties did not request oral argument, and the Court considers this matter fully submitted.

For the reasons set forth below, CPRC's motion is granted, and plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery is denied.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND¹

On December 1, 2017, a locomotive marked with the letters "CP" collided with a vehicle at railway crossing 385-463L near Nora Springs, Iowa, resulting in the deaths of the vehicle's driver and front-seat passenger, and injury of the back-seat passenger. (Doc. 45-2, at 2-3). Decedent James Blazier ("Mr. Blazier") was the driver. (Id.). Decedent Dixie Blazier ("Ms. Blazier"), wife of Mr. Blazier, was the front seat passenger. (Id.). Plaintiff Glenda Mundis ("Ms. Mundis"), sister of Ms. Blazier, was the back-seat passenger. (Doc. 25, at 2). Plaintiff Robert Mundis ("Mr. Mundis") is the husband of Ms. Mundis. (Id., at 19). Plaintiff Hannah Jesski ("Ms. Jesski") is the daughter of Ms. Blazier and the Administratrix of Ms. Blazier's estate. (Id., at 2). Engineer Mel Fransdal and assistant engineer Jared Ball were operating the locomotive. (Id., at 4). Plaintiffs allege Fransdal and Ball were under the direction and control of defendants Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation ("DM&E") and/or CPRC at the time of the incident. (Id.). CPRC denies any involvement in the incident at issue. (Doc. 41-1, at 4). The Court will discuss additional facts below as they become relevant to the Court's analysis.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 20, 2020, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint and jury demand for their wrongful death and negligence claims. (Doc. 25). The complaintconsists of two counts of negligence and one count of loss of consortium against each defendant DM&E and CPRC, for a total of six counts. (Id., at 8-20). On March 17, 2020, CPRC filed a motion to dismiss CPRC as a defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction.² (Doc. 41). Plaintiffs filed a resistance to CPRC's motion to dismiss on March 31, 2020. (Doc. 45). CPRC filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss on April 7, 2020. (Doc. 46).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Personal Jurisdiction

I. Applicable Law

A court must have personal jurisdiction over the parties before it can resolve a case. Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortg. Corp., 137 S. Ct. 553, 562 (2017). A defendant can raise a court's lack of personal jurisdiction by pre-answer motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). The plaintiff bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. K-V Pharm., 648 F.3d at 591. Courts consider the pleadings as well as affidavits and exhibits in determining if a plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. Id. at 591-92. "The evidentiary showing required at the prima facie stage is minimal." Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d 785, 794 (8th Cir. 2010) (alteration omitted) (quoting Willnerd v. First Nat'l Neb., Inc., 558 F.3d 770, 778 (8th Cir. 2009)). The "prima facie showing," however, "must be tested, not by the pleadings alone, but by the affidavits and exhibits presented with the motions and in opposition thereto." Block Indus. v. DHJ Indus., Inc., 495 F.2d 256, 260 (8th Cir. 1974). Plaintiffs have the burden of offering sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that a defendant can be subjected to the Court's jurisdiction in the forum state. Id. at 259. In ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction courts "mustview the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all factual conflicts in its favor in deciding whether the plaintiff made the requisite showing." K-V Pharm., 648 F.3d at 592.

For a district court to properly assert jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant the court "must determine [if] personal jurisdiction exists under the forum state's long-arm statute and [if] the exercise of personal jurisdiction is consistent with due process." Wells Dairy, Inc. v. Food Movers Int'l, Inc., 607 F.3d 515, 518 (8th Cir. 2010). Iowa's long-arm statute authorizes personal jurisdiction to the fullest extent allowed by the United States Constitution, so the Court need only analyze whether exercising personal jurisdiction comports with due process. Creative Calling Sols., Inc. v. LF Beauty Ltd., 799 F.3d 975, 979 (8th Cir. 2015). "Due process requires that a defendant have certain 'minimum contacts' with the forum State for the State to exercise specific jurisdiction." Id., at 980 (citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 (1980)). Once a plaintiff has established that the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state, the court must consider the contacts "in light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with 'fair play and substantial justice.'" Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476 (1985) (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320 (1945)); see also Creative Calling Sols., 799 F.3d at 981-82 ("Even where a party has minimum contacts with a forum, jurisdiction can still be unreasonable. The Due Process Clause forbids the exercise of personal jurisdiction under circumstances that would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted a five-factor test to determine if a defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state and whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process. Whaley v. Esebag, 946 F.3d 447, 452 (8th Cir. 2020). The five factors are: "(1) the nature and quality of contacts withthe forum state; (2) the quantity of such contacts; (3) the relation of the cause of action to the contacts; (4) the interest of the forum state in providing a forum for its residents; and (5) convenience of the parties." Id. (quoting Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Maples Indus., Inc., 97 F.3d 1100, 1102 (8th Cir. 1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The first two factors of the test address the minimum contacts portion of the personal jurisdictional analysis. Pope v. Elabo GmbH, 588 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 1018 (D. Minn. 2008). The third factor differentiates between specific and general jurisdiction. Burlington, 97 F.3d at 1102. The fourth and fifth factors address other considerations, in addition to minimum contacts, that affect the reasonableness of a court exercising personal jurisdiction. See Pope, 588 F. Supp. 2d at 1018. "The fourth and fifth factors 'carry less weight and are not dispositive.'" Whaley, 946 F.3d at 452 (quoting Downing v. Goldman Phipps, PLLC, 764 F.3d 906, 912 (8th Cir. 2014)).

"General jurisdiction," which allows the court to hear any claim against the defendant, exists when the defendant has "continuous and systematic" contacts with the forum state which render the defendant "essentially at home in the forum state." Creative Calling Sols., Inc., 799 F.3d at 979 (quoting Daimler AF v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 127 (2014)). Thus, when a court has general personal jurisdiction over the defendant it need not assess personal jurisdiction as to each claim. Here, plaintiffs concede this Court lacks general jurisdiction over CPRC, so the Court will not analyze whether it has general jurisdiction over CPRC. (Doc. 45-2, at 4 n.3).

Instead, plaintiffs assert that this Court has "specific jurisdiction" over defendants. (Id., at 5). "'Specific jurisdiction,' . . . is proper when a defendant has certain contacts with the forum State and the cause of action arises out of those contacts." Creative Calling Sols., 799 F.3d at 979-80. "Because [the specific jurisdiction] analysis depends on the relationship between the claims and contacts, [courts] generally evaluate specific jurisdiction on a claim-by-claim basis." Marten v. Godwin, 499 F.3d 290, 296 (3d Cir.2007); see also Grynberg v. Ivanhoe Energy, Inc., 490 Fed. App'x 86, 93 n.4 (10th Cir. 2012); Phillips Exeter Acad. v. Howard Phillips Fund, 196 F.3d 284, 289 (1st Cir. 1999); 16 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE - CIVIL § 108.42[1] (3d ed. 2019) ("Several circuits have taken the view that the determination of specific personal jurisdiction is a claim-specific inquiry."). Similarly, "each defendant's contacts with the forum must be assessed individually." Select Comfort Corp. v. Kittaneh, 161 F. Supp. 3d 724, 731 (D. Minn. 2014) (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 781 n.13 (1984)). Because corporations are legal fictions, their contacts with the forum are determined based on the acts of the corporation's representatives within the scope of their relationship with the corporation. Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316; see also 16 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE - CIVIL § 108.42[3][b][ii] (2020) ("Whether a corporation has made contacts justifying the exercise of personal jurisdiction is, in reality, a question of whether the contacts made by the agents and employees of the corporation are sufficient to justify the exercise of jurisdiction. If so, these acts of the corporation's agents and employees will be attributed to the...