Lathrop v. Wabash Nat'l Corp., 3:20-cv-02276-AC
| Decision Date | 26 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 3:20-cv-02276-AC |
| Parties | JEREMY LATHROP, Plaintiff, v. WABASH NATIONAL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, and FEDEX CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Jeremy Lathrop (“Lathrop”) brings this action against Defendants Wabash National Corporation (“Wabash”) and FedEx Corporation (“FedEx”) (collectively “Defendants”), asserting claims for common law negligence, negligence per se, strict product liability, and violations of Oregon's Employer Liability Law, Oregon Revised Statutes (“ORS”) 654.310, and the Oregon Safe Employment Act (“OSEA”), ORS 654.005. FedEx moves to dismiss Lathrop claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). For the following reasons, FedEx's motion should be granted.[1]
Lathrop alleges that all relevant times, he was employed by FedEx Freight, Inc. (“Freight”). (Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1-1.) On September 28, 2018, Lathrop was injured while working within the course and scope of his employment as a truck driver with Freight. (Id. ¶ 4.) On that day, Lathrop was driving a truck with a trailer attached that was manufactured and sold by Wabash (the “Trailer”), carrying packages to be delivered to Freight's customers. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 4.) While making deliveries in Portland, Oregon, Lathrop pulled into a parking lot to verify the address of a delivery. (Id. ¶ 4.) Checking the address required Lathrop to exit the truck cab to review paperwork inside the Trailer. (Id.) Lathrop entered the rear of the Trailer without difficulty and determined the address.
Exiting the rear of the Trailer, Lathrop held the accordion Trailer door tether with his left hand and stepped his right foot on a small step on the Trailer's right side with his right hand on the Trailer frame. (Id. ¶ 5.) As Lathrop pulled the door and stepped his left foot from the Trailer bed to the Trailer bumper, the small step wobbled and lurched forward, causing Lathrop to lose his balance and fall toward the Trailer. (Id. ¶ 5.) Lathrop caught himself with his right hand on the Trailer bed, but the accordion Trailer door came down hard and fast, crushing his right hand. (Id.) Lathrop sustained several injuries to his right hand, including traumatic crush injury, right third digit proximal phalanx fracture, non-union right fifth metacarpal neck fracture, extensor tendon injury at the fifth proximal interphalangeal joint without retraction, puncture wound in right palm, pin tract infection post-surgery, right finger pain, and right-hand ligamentous injuries. (Id. ¶ 10.) Lathrop underwent several surgical procedures to repair his right hand. (Id. ¶ 11.)
Lathrop reported his injury to Freight's Operations Manager, who determined the injury was caused by equipment failure. (Id. ¶ 6.) The Trailer was sent to a mechanic for repairs and a bolt on the step was tightened. (Id.) The Trailer was in substantially the same condition at the time of its manufacture, distribution, and sale by Wabash to Freight. (Id. ¶ 7.)
Wabash is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Lafayette, Indiana. (Compl. ¶ 1(b).) Wabash manufactures, distributes, services, and sells truck trailers and related equipment, some of which is sold, leased, or rented to customers in Oregon. (Id.) FedEx is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Memphis, Tennesee. (Id. ¶ 1(e).) FedEx is the parent company of Freight and other FedEx entities. (Id.) Freight is an Arkansas corporation and employed Lathrop at its facility in Portland, Oregon. (Id. ¶ 1(a).)
On September 25, 2020, Lathrop filed his action in Multnomah County Circuit Court against Defendants Wabash, FedEx, and TEC Equipment, Inc. (“TEC”). In his Complaint Lathrop brings claims against Wabash for strict product liability and negligence. Lathrop alleges that Wabash knew or should have known that the right rear step on the back of the Trailer would become loose over time and create a potential hazard. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Lathrop contends that Wabash is strictly liable for manufacturing, designing, inspecting testing, and selling the Trailer in an unreasonably dangerous and defective condition. (Id. ¶ 9.) Alternatively, Lathrop alleges that he was injured as a result of Wabash's negligence. (Id. ¶¶ 17-19.)
Lathrop brings claims against FedEx for negligence, and two statutory violations, the ELL, ORS 654.310, and the OSEA, ORS 654.005(6). Lathrop asserts that as the parent corporation, FedEx was engaged in a common enterprise with Freight, its subsidiary. (Id. ¶ 27.) Lathrop alleges FedEx had custody and control over his work activity, and that FedEx knew or should have known that injuries occurring while exiting the rear of trailers is a significant source of injuries for delivery drivers operating Freight's vehicles. (Id. ¶¶ 28-29.) Lathrop alleges FedEx is negligent by failing to require routine maintenance and inspection of the step and Trailer, and by failing to adequately supervise and train its workers in accident avoidance. (Id. ¶¶ 37-38, 40-41, 44-49.)
On November 30, 2020, FedEx filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Oregon Rule of Civil Procedure 21. (Notice of Removal at ¶ 3.) On December 16, 2020, Lathrop filed a Notice of Dismissal as to TEC. (Notice of Removal at ¶ 4 &Ex. D, ECF No. 1.) On December 30, 2020, FedEx removed the action to this court based on diversity jurisdiction. At a telephone status conference on January 14, 2021, the court permitted the parties to complete briefing on FedEx's pending motion to dismiss. (Minutes of Proceedings, ECF No. 10.)
In a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), the plaintiff bears the burden to demonstrate that the court's exercise of jurisdiction is proper. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004). When resolving such a motion on written materials, rather than after an evidentiary hearing, the court need “only inquire into whether the plaintiff's pleadings and affidavits make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). FedEx's personal jurisdiction challenge is based on its written materials, not an evidentiary hearing; thus, Lathrop “need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand dismissal.” AMA Mulitmedia, LLC v. Wanat, 970 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2020); Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 800. Uncontroverted allegations in the Complaint must be taken as true, but Lathrop cannot simply rest on the bare allegations in the complaint. AMA Multimedia, 970 F.3d at 1207; CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2011) (). “[D]isputed allegations in the complaint that are not supported with evidence or affidavits cannot establish jurisdiction[.]” AMA Multimedia, 970 F.3d at 1207 (citing In re Boon Glob. Ltd., 923 F.3d 643, 650 (9th Cir. 2019). Conflicts between facts contained in declarations or affidavits are resolved in the plaintiff's favor. Mattel, Inc. v. Greiner &Hausser GmbH, 354 F.3d 857, 861-62 (9th Cir. 2003).
FedEx moves to dismiss the claims against it due to lack of personal jurisdiction. Lathrop concedes the court does not have general jurisdiction over FedEx. (Pl. Mem. Opp'n at 4, ECF No. 13.) Therefore, the court examines whether Lathrop has established specific personal jurisdiction over FedEx.
Unless a federal statute governs personal jurisdiction, a district court applies the law of the forum state. See Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008). Oregon's long-arm statute is co-extensive with federal due process standards. Gray &Co. v. Firstenberg Mach. Co., 913 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Or. R. Civ. P. 4(L)); Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 2015); Wallace v. Holden, 297 Or.App. 824, 834 (2019) (). Thus, the court need determine only whether its exercise of personal jurisdiction over FedEx would offend constitutional due process requirements. Gray, 913 F.2d at 760; Harris Rutsky &Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Bell &Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2003); Climax Portable Mach. Tools, Inc., v. Trawena GmbH, Case No. 3:18-cv-1825-AC, 2020 WL 1304487, at *1 (D. Or. Mar. 19, 2020).
Due process requires that the defendant “have 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, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (citations omitted); Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2015). To satisfy due process requirements, defendants in a civil action must have a requisite level of minimum contacts with a forum state. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1779 (2017) (“BSM”). Minimum contacts may be shown by a defendant's continuous and systematic general business contacts with a forum state (general jurisdiction), or if a defendant has sufficient contacts arising from or related to specific transactions or activities within the forum state (specific jurisdiction). BSM, 137 S.Ct. at 1780; Schwarzengger, 374 F.3d at 800-02.
“The inquiry whether a forum State may assert specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant ‘focuses on the relationship among the defendant, the forum,...
To continue reading
Request your trial