Smith v. Bishop
| Decision Date | 29 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 20-12526 (ZNQ) (DEA) |
| Parties | KEVIN SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GAVIN BISHOP, et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon a Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Corrosion Control Specialist, Inc. (“CCSI”), Allen Bishop, and Pat Bishop (collectively, “Defendants”) for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). (“Motion,” ECF No. 20.) Plaintiffs Kevin Smith and Joanna Smith opposed, (“Opp'n Br.,” ECF No. 22), and Defendants replied (“Reply Br.,” ECF No. 23). The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions and decided the Motion without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the following reasons, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on September 10, 2022 (ECF No 1), and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) (the “First Motion to Dismiss,” ECF No. 8). The Court granted the First Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and gave Plaintiffs leave to amend. (ECF No. 17.)
After Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint, Defendants filed this Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). (See “Moving Br.,” ECF No 20). The Court incorporates by reference the facts articulated in its opinion granting the First Motion to Dismiss, but the Court will briefly restate the pertinent allegations.[1] (See ECF Nos. 16, 17.) Allegations are taken from the Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.” or “Amended Complaint,” ECF No. 18) and accepted as true for the purpose of deciding a Rule 12(b)(2) motion.[2]
Plaintiffs Kevin Smith and Joanna Smith (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are New Jersey citizens. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7-8.) Pat and Allen Bishop are Florida citizens, and their company CCSI maintains its principal place of business in Florida. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 11.) Defendant Gavin Bishop is a Florida citizen and an employee of CCSI. (Id. ¶ 10.) At the time of the incident, Kevin Smith was employed by Belcan and was responsible for repairs and maintenance of a U.S. Naval vessel known as the Patuxent, which was located at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard in Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶ 14.) Belcan hired CCSI to perform various tasks associated with Patuxent (the “Patuxent Project”), and Belcan assigned Kevin Smith to oversee and inspect work performed by CCSI on the Patuxent Project. (Id. ¶ 15, 17.) During the pendency of the Patuxent Project, Kevin Smith and Defendants Allen Bishop, Gavin Bishop, and Pat Bishop temporarily stayed at a hotel in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. (Id. ¶ 16.)
On September 16, 2018, Allen Bishop approached Kevin Smith at the hotel and invited him to a nearby restaurant in Maple Shade, New Jersey. (Id. ¶ 18.) While at the restaurant, Plaintiff and Allen Bishop only engaged in a limited discussion concerning the Patuxent Project. (Id. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff further alleges that, while at the restaurant, Gavin Bishop became “increasingly hostile and belligerent” towards Kevin Smith. (Id. ¶ 21.) Upon the conclusion of the “meeting,” Allen Bishop departed and left Kevin Smith and Gavin Bishop at the restaurant. (Id. ¶ 22.) While waiting for transportation, Gavin Bishop struck Kevin Smith on the head from behind, which rendered Kevin Smith unconscious. (Id. ¶ 23.) Plaintiffs claim that CCSI hired Gavin Bishop despite knowing his propensity for committing violent and unlawful acts. (Id. ¶ 25.)
Plaintiffs raise five causes of action before the Court: the assault and battery committed by Gavin Bishop (Count I) (id. ¶¶ 24-26); Defendant CCSI's vicarious liability relating to Count I (Count II) (id. ¶¶ 27-31); Defendants Allen Bishop, Pat Bishop, and CCSI's negligent hiring of Gavin Bishop (Count III) (id. ¶¶ 32-34); Defendants Allen Bishop, Pat Bishop, and CCSI's negligent supervision or retention of Gavin Bishop (Count IV) (id. ¶¶1 35-37); and Plaintiff Joanna Smith's per quod claim as a result of her husband Kevin Smith's injury (Count V) (id. ¶¶ 38-40).
The Court previously granted the First Motion to Dismiss because it lacked both general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction over Defendants. (See generally ECF No. 16.) In the initial complaint, Plaintiffs provided no competent evidence to establish general jurisdiction over CCSI because Defendants offered affidavits to establish that fewer than 1% of CCSI's projects were in New Jersey. (Id. at 4.) In addition, Plaintiffs failed to establish general jurisdiction over Defendants Allen and Pat Bishop because Plaintiffs failed to allege any facts as to where they were served. (Id. at 4-5.) Moreover, Allen Bishop and Pat Bishop never consented to this Court's exercise of general jurisdiction. (Id. at 5.) The Court, therefore, found that it lacked general jurisdiction over Defendants. (Id. 4-5.)
Furthermore, Plaintiffs also provided no basis for specific jurisdiction over Defendants in their initial complaint. (Id. at 5.) The Court explained that although Defendants directed their activities to the forum state by operating ten projects in New Jersey, the injury to Plaintiff Kevin Smith did not arise from any of those projects. (Id. at 6.) Thus, the Court lacked specific jurisdiction over Defendants because the injuries did not arise from and was not related to Defendants' purposeful availment of activities in New Jersey. (Id.) As for the meal that took place in New Jersey, the Court found that Plaintiffs had failed to plead-in their original complaint, through sworn affidavits, or other competent evidence-facts to support the contention that Defendants purposefully requested or arranged for the meal to take place in New Jersey. (Id.) Plaintiffs, therefore, had failed to make a prima facie case of sufficient minimum contacts. (Id.)
The Court also found that Plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the reasonableness prong for specific jurisdiction, in part, because they failed to clearly articulate their arguments concerning same. (Id. at 7.) Based on the facts proffered in the complaint, the Court found that Plaintiff had failed to establish that Defendants could reasonably foresee needing to defend a lawsuit in New Jersey because Plaintiffs had failed to establish sufficient minimum contacts between Defendants and New Jersey. (Id.) Plaintiffs had not provided the Court with enough facts to support the contention that Defendants purposefully placed Gavin, their employee/agent, into New Jersey as the complaint was not clear on which party proposed New Jersey to be the location of the meal. (Id.) For those reasons, the Court granted Defendants' First Motion to Dismiss, finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendants, and afforded Plaintiffs the opportunity to file the Amended Complaint. (Id. at 8.)
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs provide no factual support for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Plaintiffs have failed to show a connection between them and New Jersey. (Moving Br. at 8, ECF No. 20.) Defendants contend that Plaintiffs still fail to assert any facts that would subject Defendants to general or specific jurisdiction. (Id. at 5-11.) They argue that Plaintiffs' claims are not related to Defendants' limited contacts with New Jersey, and that Defendants' contacts with New Jersey are not continuous or systematic, and that Defendants have not purposefully established minimum contacts in New Jersey. (Id. at 4.)
First, Defendants argue that they are not subject to specific jurisdiction in New Jersey. (Id. at 5.) Only 1.6% of CCSI's business has been performed in the State of New Jersey, and none of those projects are related to the claims in this lawsuit. (Id. at 2, 4-5.) CCSI did not purposefully direct its activities at the forum, and the only instance here that relates to Defendants is that Allen Bishop had a meal at a restaurant in Maple Shade, New Jersey. (Id. at 6.) Outside of that and Defendants' stay at the hotel in New Jersey, Defendants were working on a project in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Id. at 6.) As reflected in Defendants' declarations, neither CCSI, Allen Bishop, nor Pat Bishop regularly transact business in New Jersey or otherwise derive substantial revenue from the State. (P. Bishop Decl. ¶¶ 9-28, ECF No. 20-2; A. Bishop Decl. ¶¶ 6-18, ECF No. 201). Therefore, Defendants' limited business activities in New Jersey did not give rise to Plaintiffs' claims and cannot serve as the basis for exercising specific jurisdiction. (Id. at 7.) Thus, it cannot be said they purposefully directed its activities at the forum. (Moving Br. at 7-8.)
Second, Defendants argue that they are not subject to general jurisdiction in New Jersey. (Id. at 8.) Allen and Pat Bishop are not residents of New Jersey, and CCSI is a Florida company with their principal place of business in Florida. (Id. at 9-10.) Defendants contend that this Court previously found that Plaintiffs provided “no competent evidence to establish general jurisdiction.” (See ECF No. 16.) Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint likewise contains no allegations that are sufficient to establish general jurisdiction. (Moving Br. at 10.)
Even if a basis for personal jurisdiction was found through specific or general jurisdiction, Defendants argue that exercising personal jurisdiction over Defendants would violate Due Process Clause. (Id. at 11.) Defendants contend they do not have sufficient minimum contacts with New Jersey, and the exercise of jurisdiction over them would...
To continue reading
Request your trial