Shook v. Gleue Harvesting, LLC
| Decision Date | 08 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | 4:22-CV-00208-JAR-SH |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma |
| Parties | ERICA SHOOK and DAVID SHOOK, Individually and as Parents and Next Friends of minors L.S. and D.S., Plaintiff, v. GLEUE HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a and/or d/b/a GLEUE HARVESTING a/k/a and/or d/b/a GLEUE a/k/a and/or d/b/a GLEUE TRUCKING, LLC a/k/a and/or d/b/a GLEUE TRUCKING a/k/a and/or d/b/a GLEUE FARMS, LLC a/k/a and/or d/b/a GLEUE FARMS a/k/a and/or d/b/a GLUE FARMS & CATTLE LLC a/k/a and/or R&H GLEUE INC., KERRI RENEE GLEUE a/k/a KERRI R. GLEUE a/k/a KERRI GLEUE, FREDERIK HENDRICK BOUWER a/k/a FREDERIK H. BOUWER a/k/a FREDERIK BOUWER a/k/a FRED BOUWER, JOHN DOE, a business entity JANE DOE, an individual, Defendants. |
Before the court is the motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative the motion to transfer venue to the United Stated District Court for the District of Kansas filed by defendants Gleue Harvesting, LLC, Gleue Trucking, LLC, Gleue Farms, LLC, Gleue Farms & Cattle, LLC, R & H Gleue Inc., Kerri Renee Gleue, Frederik Henrick Bouwer, John Doe, a business entity and Jane Doe, an individual (collectively, “the Gleue Companies”). Def.'s Special Appearance and Mot Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Mot. Transfer Venue, ECF No. 7 (May 16, 2022) (“Def.'s MTD”). In their motion, the Gleue Companies assert that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. Def.'s MTD at 1. In the alternative, the Gleue Companies move for the court to transfer this action to the District of Kansas as a more convenient venue. Id. at 12. Plaintiffs Erica Shook and David Shook (collectively, “the Shooks”) oppose the motion. Pl.'s Resp. Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Mot. Transfer at 1, ECF No. 18 (June 21, 2022) (“Pl.'s Br.”). For the following reasons, the Gleue Companies' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part, and the motion to transfer venue is denied.
This case has a complex factual background, and the court recounts here only the facts relevant to the Gleue Companies' motion to dismiss and the questions of personal jurisdiction and venue. The following facts are undisputed from the record.
On October 9, 2021, two motor vehicles collided. David Shook drove the first vehicle, with wife Erica Shook and their two children L.S. and D.S. as passengers. Pl.'s Br. at 1. Fredrick Bouwer, a citizen of South Africa and an employee of Gleue Harvesting, LLC, drove the second vehicle, a tractor-trailer owned by Kerri Gleue. Def.'s MTD at 2. The collision took place in Labette County, Kansas, near the intersection of U.S. Route 400 and Wallace Road, approximately 25 miles north of the border between Kansas and Oklahoma. Pl.'s Br. at 1. Following the collision, David Shook, Erica Shook, and L.S. were taken to Parsons, Kansas, for treatment of their immediate injuries, and then the Shooks returned to Oklahoma for surgery and further treatment from a physical therapist, chiropractor, and pediatrician. Def.'s MTD Ex. 10; Pl.'s Br. at 19.
David Shook, Erica Shook, L.S., and D.S. are residents and citizens of Oklahoma. Pl.'s Br. at 1. Frederick Bouwer is a citizen of South Africa and was a temporary resident of Kansas at the time of the collision. Def.'s MTD Ex. 3. Gleue Harvesting, LLC is incorporated in Kansas and claims LeRoy, Kansas, as its principal place of business. Def.'s MTD Ex. 3. Kerri Gleue is the single member manager of Gleue Harvesting, LLC and resides in LeRoy, Kansas. Def.'s MTD Ex. 4. Gleue Trucking, LLC, Gleue Farms, LLC, Gleue Farms and Cattle, LLC, and R & H Gleue Inc. (collectively, “the Other Gleue Defendants”) are all incorporated in Kansas, claim LeRoy, Kansas, as their principal place of business, and are member operated LLCs whose members are citizens of Kansas and Virginia. Def.'s MTD Ex. 5-8.
In 2020 and 2021, Gleue Harvesting, LLC completed several contracts in Oklahoma. See, e.g., Pl.'s Br. Ex. 2 (Facebook post about working in Oklahoma on May 23, 2020); Pl.'s Br. Ex. 3 (); Pl.'s Br. Ex. 4 (); Pl.'s Br. Ex. 5 (); Def.'s MTD at 11 (admitting that Gleue Harvesting, LLC did two silage cutting jobs in Anadarko, Oklahoma, in 2021, each lasting less than three weeks). Additionally, the Shooks alleges that defendants “travel to Oklahoma and Texas for business to make ends meet.” Pl.'s Br. at 3.
The collision had one eyewitness, Randy Wagnon Jr., who resides in Claremore, Oklahoma. Pl.'s Br. at 18. Several witnesses that the Shooks anticipate calling, including the Oklahoma treating physicians and family friends, reside in Oklahoma. Pl.'s Br. at 19-20. The Gleue Companies allege that the emergency personnel who responded to the collision reside in Parsons, Kansas. Def.'s MTD at 23.
When a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada, 149 F.3d 1086, 1091 (10th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). “When a district court rules on a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without holding an evidentiary hearing, . . . the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction to defeat the motion.” Id. (citations omitted). “The plaintiff may make this prima facie showing by demonstrating, via affidavit or other written materials, facts that if true would support jurisdiction over the defendant.” Id. “In order to defeat a plaintiffs prima facie showing of jurisdiction, a defendant must present a compelling case demonstrating ‘that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.'” Id. (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 477 (1985)). The allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true unless they are contradicted by a defendant's affidavit. Taylor v. Phelan, 912 F.2d 429, 431 (10th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). If the parties provide conflicting affidavits, all factual disputes must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor. Id. (citation omitted).
A federal district court may exercise jurisdiction over a properly served defendant “who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1)(A). The Supreme Court has distinguished between two types of personal jurisdiction: general and specific. See Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 126-27 (2014). A court can exercise general jurisdiction over any claims against defendants who are “essentially at home” there, id. at 127 (internal quotation marks omitted), as when an individual is domiciled in the State or a corporation is incorporated or has its principal place of business there, see Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1024 (2021).
Specific jurisdiction over nonresident defendants is proper if an applicable statute authorizes service of process and if the exercise of jurisdiction comports with constitutional due process. Hood v. American Auto Care, LLC, 21 F.4th 1216, 1220 (10th Cir. 2021). Oklahoma's long-arm statute authorizes service of process and provides that an Oklahoma court “may exercise jurisdiction on any basis consistent with the Constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States.” Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2004(F). Because “[n]o party has argued any state constitutional objection,” the relevant inquiry on appeal is “whether the United States Constitution places any limits on Oklahoma's ability to exercise jurisdiction” over defendants. Newsome v. Gallacher, 722 F.3d 1257, 1264 (10th Cir. 2013).
The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a nonresident 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, 315-16 (1945) (quotation omitted). These minimum contacts must “proximately result from actions by the defendant himself which create a substantial connection with the forum State.” Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 475 (quotation and emphasis omitted). “The substantial connection between the defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State.” Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., 480 U.S. 102, 112 (1987) (quotation, citation, and emphasis omitted). “The contacts needed for this kind of jurisdiction often go by the name ‘purposeful availment.'” Ford Motor Co., 141 S.Ct. at 1024 (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475). “The contacts must be the defendant's own choice and not ‘random, isolated, or fortuitous.'” Id. at 1025 (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984)).
The contacts, however, need not strictly cause the controversy at issue. A state's courts may have jurisdiction “because of another activity or occurrence involving the defendant that takes place in the State.” Id. at 1026-27 (alteration and quotation omitted). Specific jurisdiction “is premised on something of a quid pro quo: in exchange for benefitting from some purposeful conduct directed at the forum state, a party is deemed to consent to the exercise of jurisdiction for claims related to those contacts.” Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial