Wild W. Guns, LLC v. Superior Ammunition, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | 3:18-CV-00043 JWS |
| Parties | WILD WEST GUNS, LLC, and ALASKA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs, v. SUPERIOR AMMUNITION, INC. and LARRY BARNETT, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
[Re: Motion at docket 26]
I. MOTION PRESENTED
At docket 26 Defendant Larry Barnett ("Barnett") moves to dismiss all claims asserted against him under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. At docket 39, Plaintiff Wild West Guns, LLC ("Wild West") opposes the motion. Barnett replies at docket 45. Oral argument was not requested and would not assist the court.
II. BACKGROUND
Wild West's complaint alleges that Defendant Superior Ammunition, Inc. ("Superior Ammunition"), a business corporation organized under the law of South Dakota, sold defective ammunition to Anchorage resident Ernest Meinhardt ("Meinhardt"). The complaint alleges that the ammunition was custom-made for Meinhardt's rifle. It alleges that the defective ammunition resulted in personal injury to Mr. Brian Swanda ("Swanda"), an employee of Wild West, who had been test firing the rifle, which was loaded with the custom ammunition, in conjunction with work Wild West was doing on Meinhardt's rifle.
The complaint alleges that Barnett either owned and/or operated Superior Ammunition at the time the ammunition was sold. It alleges that Barnett, as the representative and/or agent of Superior Ammunition, made various representations to Meinhardt about the characteristics, quality, and safety of Superior Ammunition's custom ammunition and represented that it could manufacture ammunition suitable and safe for use in Meinhardt's rifle. It alleges that Superior Ammunition agreed to sell Meinhardt custom-made ammunition for use in Meinhardt's rifle and then manufactured and shipped that ammunition to Meinhardt in Alaska.
After the incident with Swanda, Wild West paid Meinhardt for the firearm and took an assignment of his claims related to the ammunition. Wild West then filed its complaint against Superior Ammunition and Barnett in Alaska state court. Superior Ammunition removed the case to federal court, and Barnett now moves to dismiss all claims against him.
At docket 8, the court directed the parties to meet before filing a Rule 12(b) motion. The purpose of such an order is to prompt the parties to consider whether an amendment could cure any alleged pleading deficiencies and thereby avoid unnecessary motion practice. Any Rule 12(b) motion had to be accompanied by a certification that the parties met as directed or risk being stricken by the court. Barnett failed to file the requisite certification with his motion and admitted that he did not confer with Plaintiff as to whether the asserted defects could be cured by an amended pleading. A meeting to consider Barnett's Rule 12(b)(6) argument—that Plaintiff failed to plead facts that state an independent claim against him or pierce the corporate veil—could have served the purpose of the court's directive and prompted the Plaintiff to attempt to cure the alleged defect. However, Barnett's Rule 12(b)(2) argument—that the court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over him—is not curable by amendmentand a meeting between the parties would have been futile in saving the court and parties time and effort. Therefore, the court will consider the motion at docket 26, but only to the extent it challenges personal jurisdiction.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
"Where a defendant moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant."1 Where the motion is based only upon written materials, rather than an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff is required only to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction.2 Uncontroverted allegations in the complaint are taken as true, and conflicts between parties over statements contained in affidavits are resolved in favor of the plaintiff.3
"Where, as here, there is no applicable federal statute governing personal jurisdiction, the district court applies the law of the state in which the district court sits."4 Alaska's long-arm statute authorizes the exercise of jurisdiction to the extent permitted by federal due process requirements.5 Due process requires that the 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."6
IV. DISCUSSION
The parties agree that the court does not have general personal jurisdiction over Barnett. Indeed, based on Barnett's uncontroverted affidavit, he does not have"substantial, continuous, and systematic" contacts with the state of Alaska.7 The parties' dispute is focused on whether the court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Barnett—that is, jurisdiction with respect to the claims at issue in this case. Wild West's basis for jurisdiction rests primarily on Alaska's long-arm statute AS 09.05.015, which provides several specific grounds for jurisdiction. Wild West argues that AS 09.05.015(a)(4) is applicable here. That subsection gives the court jurisdiction over a defendant in a personal injury lawsuit where the injury arose out of an act or omission by the defendant out of state, as long as at the time of the injury the defendant either engaged in solicitation or service activities in state or manufactured products that were used in state in the ordinary course of trade. Wild West also argues that AS 09.05.015(a)(5) is applicable here because it gives the court jurisdiction over a defendant in an action that arises out of a promise made by the defendant to deliver goods in state or an action that relates to goods received by the plaintiff in state from the defendant. Wild West argues that its complaint alleges Barnett made representations and provided advice to a resident of Alaska about Superior Ammunition's goods and that those goods were shipped to Alaska and received by Meinhardt in Alaska and eventually caused injury due to their allegedly defective nature. Wild West concludes "[s]ince the courts of the State of Alaska had personal jurisdiction over . . . Barnett [under the state statute], the United States District Court for the District of Alaska also has personal jurisdiction over . . . Barnett."8
Wild West's argument is misplaced. While AS 09.05.015 provides several specific grounds for jurisdiction that fit the factual basis for this lawsuit, the court's exercise of jurisdiction over Barnett is nonetheless constrained by federal due process. That is, the statute sets forth situations where the court has jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant, but only "to the maximum extent permitted by due process under the federal constitution."9 "Thus, 'the statutory and constitutional requirements merge into a single due process test,' such that an analysis of [Barnett's] jurisdictional argument under the federal Due Process Clause is dispositive."10
The Ninth Circuit uses a three-part test to determine whether a defendant has sufficient contacts to be subject to specific personal jurisdiction:
12 If the plaintiff succeeds, the burden shifts to the defendant to make a compelling case that exercising jurisdiction over him would be unreasonable.13
Under the first prong of the test, the court engages in either a "purposeful availment" analysis for contract and negligence cases or a "purposeful direction" analysis for intentional tort cases.14 Here, Barnett is not alleged to have engaged in anyintentional tortious conduct. Wild West's complaint alleges negligence claims, a contract-based claim, and a UTPA claim. Accordingly, the court must apply the "purposeful availment" analysis.15
The purposeful availment analysis requires the court to look at whether the non-resident defendant "performed some type of affirmative conduct which allows or promotes the transaction of business within the forum state."16 Typically, this requires evidence of a defendant's actions that occurred in the forum state, such as executing or performing a contract there.17 The focus must be on the "actions by the defendant himself that create a substantial connection with the forum State."18 The defendant's actions in and connections with the forum State must be of a nature that "he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there."19
Barnett's connections to Alaska are minimal. He came to the state twice for recreational purposes. He did not engage in business activities while here. The only business contacts alleged are telephone conversations between Barnett and Meinhardt while Barnett was in South Dakota and Meinhardt was in Alaska. The complaint alleges Meinhardt talked to Barnett in his role as representative or agent of Superior Ammunition about an ammunition order. Barnett acknowledges that in his capacity as a representative of Superior Ammunition he took phone calls and processed orders over the phone. He acknowledges that Meinhardt called Superior Ammunition and placed anorder for ammunition that is the subject of the litigation. He acknowledges that he may have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial