Skyline Trucking, Inc. v. Freightliner Truck Ctr. Co.
| Docket Number | 22-4052-DDC-TJJ |
| Decision Date | 28 July 2023 |
| Parties | SKYLINE TRUCKING, INC., Plaintiff, v. FREIGHTLINER TRUCK CENTER COMPANIES, TRANSWEST TRUCK TRAILER RV, and DAIMLER TRUCK NORTH AMERICA LLC, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
This Order addresses two motions brought by separate defendants in this action. Plaintiff Skyline Trucking, Inc. initially brought this case in the District Court of Saline County Kansas, alleging multiple claims against three defendants Truck Center Companies (“Truck Center”- incorrectly called Freightliner Truck Center Companies in some filings), Transwest Freightliner, LLC (“Transwest”-identified as Transwest Truck Trailer RV in some filings), and Daimler Truck North America LLC (“DTNA”). Plaintiff brings claims against all three defendants for negligence (Count I), breach of contract (Count II), breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing (Count III), negligent misrepresentation (Count V), and civil conspiracy (Count VI). Doc. 1-1 at 6-10 (Pet. ¶¶ 33-47, 58-67). Plaintiff also alleges fraud (Count IV) against defendant Truck Center, but only that defendant. Id. at 8-9 (Pet. ¶¶ 48-57).
Defendant Truck Center removed the action to our court last fall. Doc 1. Defendant Transwest then filed a Motion to Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) and (3). Doc. 13. Plaintiff responded (Doc. 26) and defendant Transwest replied (Doc. 36). Separately, defendant DTNA filed a Motion to Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) and (6). Doc. 33. Plaintiff responded (Doc. 39) and defendant DTNA replied (Doc. 42). Thus, the parties have briefed both motions fully.
Plaintiff Skyline is a corporation incorporated under Georgia law, and its principal place of business is in the same state. Doc. 17 at 2; Doc. 1 at 2 (Notice of Removal ¶ 3). Defendant Truck Center is a corporation incorporated under Nebraska law with its principal place of business there as well. Doc. 17 at 2; Doc. 1 at 2 (Notice of Removal ¶ 4). Defendant Transwest is a Colorado limited liability company. Doc. 17 at 2. Its sole member is a corporation incorporated under Colorado law with its principal place of business in Colorado. Id. Defendant DTNA is a Delaware limited liability company. Id. Its sole member is Daimler Truck & Buses U.S. Holding, L.L.C. (DTB), a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Oregon. Id. DTB's sole member is a publicly traded corporation incorporated under German law with its primary place of business in that country. Id. Defendant Truck Center asserts diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Doc. 1 at 1 (Notice of Removal ¶ 1). Plaintiff claims more than $75,000 in damages, so the court concludes plaintiff is diverse from all defendants and thus exercises its diversity jurisdiction.
The court grants in part and denies in part defendant DTNA's motion (Doc. 33), and it grants in part and denies in part defendant Transwest's motion (Doc. 13). The court explains these conclusions, below.
The following facts come from plaintiff's initial Petition filed in the District Court of Saline County, Kansas (Doc. 1-1) (attached to the Notice of Removal). The court accepts plaintiff's “well-pleaded facts as true, view[s] them in the light most favorable to [it], and draw[s] all reasonable inferences from the facts” in plaintiff's favor. Audubon of Kan., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 67 F.4th 1093, 1108 (10th Cir. 2023) (quotation cleaned up).
In June 2020, plaintiff began experiencing problems with its truck as it passed through Kansas while fulfilling a shipping contract. Doc. 1-1 at 3-4 (Pet. ¶¶ 9-10). Plaintiff took its truck to defendant Truck Center's shop for repair. Id. at 4 (Pet. ¶ 11). A few days later, defendant Truck Center informed plaintiff that it had completed the repairs, and plaintiff paid $11,750 for defendant's services. Id. (Pet. ¶¶ 12-13). Plaintiff then resumed the truck's route but continued to experience problems. Id. (Pet. ¶¶ 13-14). Plaintiff reported these problems to defendant Truck Center, who told plaintiff that the problem would resolve itself and that defendant had repaired the truck. Id. (Pet. ¶¶ 15-16).
The day after defendant Truck Center had returned the purportedly repaired truck to plaintiff, the truck's engine seized while driving through Colorado, leaving it inoperable. Id. (Pet. ¶ 19). Plaintiff had the truck towed to defendant Transwest's shop and arranged for another driver in a different truck to complete the delivery contract it was performing. Id. at 5 (Pet. ¶¶ 22-23). Plaintiff advised defendant Transwest about the truck's recent repair by defendant Truck Center. Id. (Pet. ¶ 25). Then, plaintiff didn't hear from defendant Transwest for several days. Id. (Pet. ¶ 26). During that time, plaintiff learned that defendant Transwest had removed the engine head of the truck without notifying or securing permission from plaintiff. Id. (Pet. ¶ 27). Plaintiff then complained to defendant DTNA. Id. (Pet. ¶ 28). Unable to resolve the truck's problems satisfactorily, plaintiff filed this action in state court. Defendant Truck Center removed it. See Doc. 1. And now, the other two defendants have filed separate Motions to Dismiss. Docs. 13, 33.
The court addresses each of these motions in separate sections, below. Part II discusses defendant DTNA's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33), providing the legal standard and addressing each of its arguments separately. Next, in Part III, the court discusses defendant Transwest's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13), again providing the relevant legal standard before turning to the parties' arguments.
Defendant DTNA's motion asserts two separate grounds for dismissal. First, DTNA argues that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. Second, DTNA argues that the Petition fails to state a claim on which the court may grant relief. For reasons explained below, the court grants in part and denies in part defendant DTNA's motion.
Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff-the party claiming jurisdiction-bears the burden to establish personal jurisdiction over each defendant named in the action. Eighteen Seventy, LP v. Jayson, 32 F.4th 956, 964 (10th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). But in the preliminary stages of litigation, a plaintiff's burden to establish personal jurisdiction is light. AST Sports Sci., Inc. v. CLF Distrib. Ltd., 514 F.3d 1054, 1056 (10th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
Where a defendant asks the court to dismiss by a pretrial motion to dismiss and without conducting an evidentiary hearing-as is the case here-plaintiff must make only a prima facie showing of jurisdiction. Eighteen Seventy, 32 F.4th at 964 (citing OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Can., 149 F.3d 1086, 1091 (10th Cir. 1998)). In that setting, plaintiff can make the requisite showing and thus “defeat a motion to dismiss by presenting evidence-either uncontested allegations in its complaint or evidence in the form of an affidavit or declaration- ‘that if true would support [exercising] jurisdiction over the defendant.'” Id. (quoting XMission, L.C. v. Fluent LLC, 955 F.3d 833, 839 (10th Cir. 2020)).
A defendant may “defeat [a prima facie showing of] jurisdiction by presenting a ‘compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.'” XMission, 955 F.3d at 840 (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 477 (1985)). When a defendant fails to controvert plaintiff's jurisdictional allegations with affidavits or other evidence, the court must accept the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and resolve any factual disputes about jurisdiction in plaintiff's favor. Eighteen Seventy, 32 F.4th at 964 (citing Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermillion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063, 1070 (10th Cir. 2008)).
“Federal courts ordinarily follow state law in determining the bounds of their jurisdiction over persons.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 125 (2014) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1)(A)). In a diversity action like this one, plaintiff must show that exercising jurisdiction is proper under both the forum state's long-arm statute and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. Eighteen Seventy, 32 F.4th at 965 (citations omitted). Kansas construes its long-arm statute liberally, permitting any exercise of jurisdiction under it that comports with the Constitution of the United States. OMI Holdings, 149 F.3d at 1090 (citation omitted); see also Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-308(b)(1)(L) & (b)(2). Thus, it's unnecessary to conduct a separate state law analysis and, instead, the court may proceed directly to the due process inquiry. Federated Rural Elec. Ins. v. Kootenai Elec. Co-op., 17 F.3d 1302, 1305 (10th Cir. 1994); see also Niemi v. Lasshofer, 770 F.3d 1331, 1348 (10th Cir. 2014) ().
The due process analysis involves a two-step inquiry. First “the [defendant's] contacts with the forum State must be such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” XMission, 955 F.3d at 839 (quotation cleaned up). This part of the inquiry is typically called the “minimum contacts” requirement. See Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial