Reecon North America LLC v. DU Hope International Group ( 2020 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 19-2479
___________
REECON NORTH AMERICA LLC,
FKA Brand Marketing Group LLC,
Appellant
v.
DU-HOPE INTERNATIONAL GROUP;
REECON M & E CO. LTD.
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(No. 2-18-cv-00234)
District Judge: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti
____________________________________
Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on March 6, 2020
Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 9, 2020)
OPINION*
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does
not constitute binding precedent.
KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.
Reecon NA, an American vendor of space heaters, appeals from an order
dismissing its action for breach of contract and breach of warranty against Du-Hope and
Reecon M&E, a Chinese export agent and Chinese manufacturer, for lack of jurisdiction.
We determine that we have neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction and will
therefore affirm.1
Reecon NA’s federal-question jurisdiction argument requires it to show that it
entered a contract for the sale of goods with Du-Hope. But the District Court’s factual
findings demonstrate no such contract existed: Reecon NA purchased its heaters from
Reecon M&E; Du-Hope dealt with Reecon NA as a representative of Reecon M&E; and
Reecon NA knew that Reecon M&E was the seller. Reecon NA has not challenged these
findings and we are bound by them.
Reecon NA’s diversity jurisdiction argument requires it to show that it is a
Pennsylvania firm and thus diverse from Reecon M&E and Du-Hope. But the parties’
contract embraced an agreement that the Chinese heads of Reecon M&E and Du-Hope
would become members of Reecon NA—rendering Reecon NA a Chinese citizen, see
Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 105 (3d Cir. 2015). While
1
We “always ha[ve] jurisdiction to determine [our] jurisdiction.” Orie v. Dist.
Att’y Allegheny Cty., 946 F.3d 187, 190 n.7 (3d Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). In
jurisdictional cases, we review legal rulings de novo and factual findings for clear error.
Johnson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 724 F.3d 337, 345 (3d Cir. 2013). “The burden of
establishing federal jurisdiction rests with the party asserting its existence.” Lincoln
Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 105 (3d Cir. 2015).
2
Reecon NA argues that the agreement never went into effect because two conditions did
not occur—the agreement was not executed and no closing took place—it waived those
conditions by instructing the heads of Reecon M&E and Du-Hope not to sign the
agreement, which it never even sent them, and holding them out as members. See
Amirsaleh v. Bd. of Trade, 27 A.3d 522, 529–30 (Del. 2011). Reecon NA is thus a
Chinese firm and not diverse from Reecon M&E and Du-Hope.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
3