Rinaldi v. FCA U.S. LLC
| Decision Date | 30 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:22-cv-00886-NLH-MJS |
| Parties | NANCY RINALDI AND WILLIAM SWISHER, Plaintiffs, v. FCA U.S. LLC, FOX RENT A CAR, INC., AND ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Appearances: JAY L. EDELSTEIN EDELSTEIN LAW LLP 230 SOUTH BROAD STREET SUITE 900 PHILADELPHIA, PA. 19102 On behalf of Plaintiffs
TIFFANY M. ALEXANDER NELSON MULLINS 1235 WESTLAKES DRIVE SUITE 215 BERWYN, PA. 19312 On behalf of Defendant FCA U.S LLC
FLOYD G. COTTRELL COTTRELL SOLENSKY, P.A. 3 UNIVERSITY PLAZA SUITE 500 HACKENSACK, N.J. 07601 On behalf of Defendant FOX RENT A CAR, INC.
Pending before the Court are Defendants FCA U.S. LLC (“FCA”) and Fox Rent A Car, Inc.'s (“Fox”) motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), (3). (ECF 3; ECF 6). For the reasons expressed below, Defendants' motions will be granted.
FCA is a limited liability company headquartered in Michigan and registered in Delaware which designs, manufactures, assembles, markets, distributes, and sells cars and car components. (ECF 1-1 at 1-2). Fox is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Oklahoma engaged in the renting of cars to consumers. (Id. at 2; ECF 6-1 at 23). Defendants ABC Corporations 1-10 are fictional entities in the business of designing, manufacturing, assembling, marketing, renting, or selling cars. (ECF 1-1 at 2).
Plaintiffs Nancy Rinaldi and William Swisher are a married couple and citizens of New Jersey. (Id. at 1). On or about January 21, 2020, Swisher was driving a 2018 Jeep Wrangler rented from Fox on US-1 in Monroe County, Florida when the car was struck by another vehicle and Nancy was thrown from the passenger seat and injured despite being secured by a seatbelt. (Id. at 2-3).
Plaintiffs filed a seven-count Complaint in New Jersey Superior Court - Law Division on January 18, 2022. (Id.) Counts 1, 2, 5, and 6 consist of product-liability claims by Rinaldi against FCA, Fox, and ABC Corporations 1-10. Plaintiffs allege, with respect to FCA and ABC Corporations, that the seatbelts in the Jeep Wrangler were defective; unsafe or unsuitable for use due to deviations in specifications, formula, or standards of the manufacturer or of other similar units or did not include adequate warnings; and were recalled in 2019 and FCA and ABC Corporations did not remedy the defect or adequately alert Fox as to the recall. (Id. at 3-4, 8). Plaintiffs allege that Fox and ABC Corporations rented out the Jeep Wrangler when they knew or should have known that the vehicle was not safe or fit for use and did not remedy the defective seatbelts or heed the 2019 recall. (Id. at 4-5, 8).
The Complaint also contains claims on behalf of Rinaldi against FCA for breach of warranty, (id. at 6), and negligence against Fox for alleged failure to inspect the Jeep Wrangler and keep Plaintiffs free from hazards, (id. at 7), and a loss of consortium claim against all Defendants on behalf of Swisher, (id. at 10-11).
FCA received a copy of the Summons and Complaint on January 25, 2022, (ECF 1 at 2; ECF 3-2 at 2), and filed a notice of removal on February 18, 2022, (ECF 1). In its removal notice, FCA asserts that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action as Plaintiffs are citizens of New Jersey and that FCA is an LLC whose ultimate owner is a corporation whose principal place of business and place of incorporation is the United Kingdom, rendering it a citizen of that country[1] and the Plaintiffs and the one served Defendant completely diverse.[2](Id. at ¶6). Though the Complaint does not specify damages, FCA represented that, given the alleged severity and permanency of Rinaldi's injuries, the jurisdictional amount is met. (Id. at ¶¶ 10-12).
FCA filed one of the pending motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (12)(b)(2) and (3) on February 25, 2022, alleging lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. (ECF 3). Plaintiffs filed an opposition, (ECF 4), and FCA responded, (ECF 5).
Fox filed the other pending motion to dismiss, also alleging lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and (3) on September 30, 2022. (ECF 6). Plaintiffs filed an opposition, (ECF 8),[3] and Fox filed a response, (ECF 9).
The Court has jurisdiction over this matter as the parties are diverse in citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) provides for dismissal in actions in which the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant. See Ontel Prods. Corp. v. Mindscope Prods., 220 F.Supp.3d 555, 559 (D.N.J. Dec. 8, 2016). “Once a defendant files a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing sufficient facts to show that jurisdiction exists.” Austar Int'l Ltd. v. AustarPharma LLC, 425 F.Supp.3d 336, 359 (D.N.J. Nov. 27, 2019) (citing Marten v. Godwin, 499 F.3d 290, 295-96 (3d Cir. 2007)). Without discovery or an evidentiary hearing, however, a plaintiff is held to a deferential Rule 12(b)(6) standard in which the “plaintiff need only establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction and the plaintiff is entitled to have its allegations taken as true and all factual disputes drawn in its favor.” Murphy v. Eisai, Inc., 503 F.Supp.3d 207, 214 (D.N.J. Nov. 28, 2020) (quoting Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93, 97 (3d Cir. 2004)).
A federal court's ability to exercise personal jurisdiction depends on the long-arm statute of the state in which the court sits. Ponzio v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 447 F.Supp.3d 194, 213 (D.N.J. Mar. 11, 2020). To determine whether it has jurisdiction over a defendant, a court must evaluate both the state's long-arm statute and principles of due process. Austar Int'l Ltd., 425 F.Supp.3d at 359-60. Those steps fold into one another in New Jersey as “New Jersey's long-arm statute provides for jurisdiction coextensive with the due process requirements of the United States Constitution.” Id. at 360 (quoting Miller Yacht Sales, 384 F.3d at 96). Due process permits general or specific personal jurisdiction. Salerno Med. Assocs., LLP v. Riverside Med. Mgmt., LLC, 542 F.Supp.3d 268, 275 (D.N.J. June 8, 2021) (citing Danziger & De Llano, LLP v. Morgan Verkamp LLC, 948 F.3d 124, 129 (3d Cir. 2020)).
“General jurisdiction extends to all claims against a defendant and exists where a company is ‘essentially at home.'” Hepp v. Facebook, 14 F.4th 204, 207 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1024 (2021)). “A corporation is ‘at home' at least where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business.” Salerno Med. Assocs., LLP, 542 F.Supp.3d at 276 (quoting Chavez v. Dole Food Co., 836 F.3d 205, 223 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc)). General jurisdiction exists for a limited liability company in its state of formation and principal place of business. See Rodriguez Rivera v. Loto Grp., LLC, No. 2:20-cv-4062, 2020 WL 7384720, at *1 (D.N.J. Dec. 16, 2020).
Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand, requires a fact- intensive analysis focused on a defendant's forum-related activities. See Austar Int'l Ltd., 425 F.Supp.3d at 360. “[A] court may have specific jurisdiction when the defendant has contacts with the forum, and the plaintiff's claims ‘arise out of or relate to' those contacts.” Salerno Med. Assocs., LLP, 542 F.Supp.3d at 276 (quoting Ford Motor Co., 141 S.Ct. at 1025). In order for a court to possess specific personal jurisdiction, the defendant (1) must have “‘purposefully directed [its] activities' at the forum,” (2) the case must “‘arise out of or relate to' at least one of those activities,” and (3) if the first two prongs are met, the court must decide “whether the exercise of jurisdiction otherwise ‘comport[s] with “fair play and substantial justice.”'” Ponzio, 447 F.Supp.3d at 215 (alterations in original) (quoting O'Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312, 317 (3d Cir. 2007)).
A party may also move to dismiss for improper venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). See Al-Ghena Int'l. Corp. v. Radwan, 957 F.Supp.2d 511, 519 (D.N.J. July 16, 2013). Unlike analyses with respect to personal jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(2), determining whether venue is appropriate focuses “not [on] the defendant's ‘contacts' with a particular district, but rather the location of those ‘events or omissions giving rise to the claim.'” Post Acute Med., LLC v. LeBlanc, 826 Fed.Appx. 163, 165 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting Cottman Transmission Sys., Inc. v. Martino, 36 F.3d 291, 294 (3d Cir. 1994)). It is the movant's burden to show that venue is improper and courts generally accept all pleadings as true and weigh factual conflicts in the plaintiff's favor. Al-Ghena Int'l. Corp, 957 F.Supp.2d at 519.
Whether venue is proper is informed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. See Bockman v. First Am. Mktg. Corp., 459 Fed.Appx. 157, 160 (3d Cir. 2012). First, an action may be brought in the district in which any defendant resides so long as all defendants reside in the state in which the district is located. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). The residence of the plaintiff is irrelevant. Al-Ghena Int'l. Corp 957 F.Supp.2d at 520. Second, venue is proper in the district in which “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Though courts are not required “to select the ‘best' forum, the weighing of ‘substantial' may at times seem to take on that flavor.” Post Acute Med., LLC, 826...
To continue reading
Request your trial