Vass v. Volvo Trucks North America, Inc.

• Decision Date: 16 January 2004
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A. 2:03-2286.,CIV.A. 2:03-2286.
• Citation: 304 F.Supp.2d 851
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
• Parties: Sylvia Claudette VASS, Plaintiff, v. VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; Volvo Logistics North America, Inc., and John Doe Volvo Corporation, Defendants.

304 F.Supp.2d 851

Sylvia Claudette VASS, Plaintiff, v. VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; Volvo Logistics North America, Inc., and John Doe Volvo Corporation, Defendants.

No. CIV.A. 2:03-2286.

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division.

January 16, 2004.

Robert B. Allen, Philip J. Combs, Allen Guthrie McHugh & Thomas, Charleston, WV, for Plaintiff.

Gretchen M. Callas, Christopher D. Pence, Jackson Kelly, Charleston, WV, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER PRELIMINARILY RECOGNIZING PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND TRANSFERRING ACTION

HADEN, District Judge.

Pending are the motions of Volvo Logistics North America, Inc. (Volvo Logistics) 1) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of service of process, 2) to transfer to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia at Roanoke, and 3) to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the last motion made jointly with Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. (Volvo Trucks). The motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of service of process are DENIED without prejudice. Because the Court also GRANTS the motion to transfer the action to the Bluefield division, the remaining motion will be transferred to Chief Judge Faber for resolution.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Michael Vass, a truck driver from Monroe County, West Virginia was employed by Camrett Dedicated Logistics. On January 8, 2003 Mr. Vass was transporting a load of Volvo truck parts from the Dublin, Virginia Volvo Trucks plant to a Volvo Logistics storage facility several miles away. According to the Complaint, the load he was transporting had been negligently loaded by Volvo employees. The load shifted in route, and when the trailer doors were opened, the materials fell from the trailer and crushed and killed Mr. Vass. Plaintiff Sylvia Claudette Vass, the widow, is the Administratrix and Personal Representative of Vass's estate. She brought this wrongful death action, which was removed to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Personal Jurisdiction: Standard of Review

When a district court decides a pretrial personal jurisdiction motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Centers, Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 396 (4th Cir.2003)(citing Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673, 676 (4th Cir.1989)). In deciding whether the plaintiff has made the requisite showing, the Court must resolve all disputed facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Id. (citing Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 60 (4th Cir.1993)). The burden of proving in personam jurisdiction rests with the plaintiff. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936). Mere allegations of personal jurisdiction are sufficient for a party to make a prima facie showing. Dowless v. Warren-Rupp Houdailles, Inc., 800 F.2d 1305, 1307 (4th Cir.1986). If the existence of jurisdiction turns on disputed factual questions, the court ultimately may resolve the challenge on the basis of a separate evidentiary hearing, or may defer ruling pending receipt at trial of evidence relevant to the jurisdictional question. Combs, 886 F.2d at 676.

B. Personal Jurisdiction

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(A) provides a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant in the manner provided by state law. Carefirst, 334 F.3d at 396 (citing ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, Inc., 126 F.3d 617, 622 (4th Cir.1997)). For a district court to assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, two conditions must be satisfied: (1) the exercise of jurisdiction must be authorized under the state's long-arm statute; and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. (citing Christian Sci. Bd. of Dirs. of the First Church of Christ v. Nolan, 259 F.3d 209, 215 (4th Cir.2001)); see also Syl. pt. 5, Abbott v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 191 W.Va. 198, 444 S.E.2d 285 (1994). The West Virginia long-arm statute relating to corporations is found at West Virginia Code section 56-3-33.¹ As the Fourth Circuit recognized, however, "[b]ecause the West Virginia long-arm statute is coextensive with the full reach of due process, it is unnecessary ... to go through the normal two-step formula for determining the existence of personal jurisdiction. Rather the statutory inquiry necessarily merges with the Constitutional inquiry." In re Celotex Corp., 124 F.3d 619, 627-28 (4th Cir.1997).

To satisfy constitutional due process, the defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with West Virginia so that requiring it to defend its interests here would not "offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). Those minimum contacts necessary to confer jurisdiction are limited to those activities by which a person "purposely avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state." Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958); see also In re Celotex, 124 F.3d at 628 (the minimum contacts must be "purposeful"). This occurs where the contacts "proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a `substantial connection' with the forum state," Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985)(emphasis in original), or where the defendant's efforts are "purposefully directed" at the state. Id. at 476, 105 S.Ct. 2174.

The West Virginia long-arm statute, W. Va.Code § 56-3-33(a), provides a nonresident corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction in this State if it engages in any of the following activities:

(1) Transacting any business in the State;

(2) Contracting to supply services or things in this State;

. . . . .

(4) Causing tortious injury in this State by an act or omission outside this State if he regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent court of conduct, or drives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in this State;

Id. Additionally:

(b) When jurisdiction over a nonresident is based solely upon the provisions of this section, only a cause of action arising from or growing out of one or more of the acts specified in subdivisions (1) through (7), subsection (a) of this section may be asserted against him.

W. Va.Code § 56-3-33(b)(2003).

Volvo Logistics provides an affidavit by its President Susan Alt who avers:

13. Volvo Logistics ... occasionally purchases office and first aid supplies from a company based in West Virginia.

14. Volvo Logistics ... entered into a contract with Volvo Trucks ... to fulfill certain of Volvo Trucks' ... transportation needs.

15. Volvo Logistics ... serves as an intermediary between Volvo Trucks ... and common carriers. Volvo Logistics ... negotiates with certain common carriers for the cost of pick-up and delivery of goods on certain routes required by Volvo Trucks.

16. These common carriers pick up goods from locations in West Virginia and make deliveries to West Virginia at the request of Volvo Trucks[.]

(Volvo Logistics' Mot. to Dismiss, Ex., Alt Aff. ¶¶ 13-16.)

Plaintiff argues Volvo Logistics regularly transacts business in the state by contracting to supply the common carrier delivery services for Volvo Truck, picking up and delivering goods in the state. The Complaint states that Volvo Trucks has dealerships in Huntington, Parkersburg, Wheeling, Princeton, and Charleston, West Virginia. (Compl.¶ 3.) Volvo Logistics counters that all its business in West Virginia in any way connected with truck deliveries and so, potentially, to Plaintiff's death, was performed by independent contractors. As a noted commentator explains:

[I]f the nonresident corporation's business in the state is conducted by independent contractors with only limited power to act on behalf of the corporation, then the corporation probably will not be held to be doing business in the state and therefore will not be amenable to service of process.

4A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1069.2 (3d ed.2003)(collecting cases). As the Complaint further states, however, "Volvo has established a complex network of interrelated companies and wholly owned subsidiaries which have the effect of obscuring the relationships between the entities." (Compl.¶ 9.) Further, Volvo Logistics is, upon information and belief, a wholly owned subsidiary of Volvo. (Id. ¶ 9.) Although the Alt affidavit is the only evidence before the Court on these issues, Plaintiff does request, at a minimum, an opportunity for discovery on these issues. Considering the very low threshold showing necessary to establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction, and based on the allegations in the Complaint, particularly the complex relationships of Volvo entities, some of which unquestionably do extensive business in West Virginia, and Alt's affidavit showing Volvo Logistics arranges truck deliveries of Volvo parts into West Virginia, the Court FINDS and CONCLUDES Plaintiff has established the minimum requirements necessary to assert personal jurisdiction over Volvo Logistics. The motion to dismiss on that basis is DENIED without prejudice.

B. Sufficiency of Process

Volvo Logistics moves for dismissal for failure to effect proper service. Plaintiff contends in response that Andy Lukoff, Vice-President of Volvo Logistics, was served by paying the required fee and causing the Clerk of the Kanawha County Circuit Court to serve Volvo Logistics with a copy of the Summons and Complaint by certified mail. The Circuit Clerk sent process to Volvo Logistics by certified mail,...