Manning v. Arconic Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD DWAYNE MANNING, No. 2:19-cv-02202-MCE-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ARCONIC INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By way of this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover from Defendants Arconic, Inc., 18 Materion Brush, Inc., U.S. Minerals, Inc., and WABCO Holdings, Inc. (“WABCO 19 Holdings”), for injuries sustained as a result of his long-term exposure to Beryllium- 20 containing products. Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 21 Personal Jurisdiction filed by WABCO Holdings. ECF No. 10. For the following reasons, 22 that Motion is GRANTED with leave to amend.1 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 1Because oral argument would not have been of material assistance, the Court ordered this 28 matter submitted on the briefs. SeeE.D. Cal. Local R. 230(g). 1 ANALYSIS2 2 3 A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void, and due process requires 4 that a defendant be subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court. World–Wide 5 Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 (1980) (citing Pennoyer v. Neff, 6 95 U.S. 714, 732–33 (1878); Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)). In 7 opposing a defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff 8 bears the burden of establishing the court’s jurisdiction over the defendant. Wash. Shoe 9 Co. v. A–Z Sporting Goods Inc., 704 F.3d 668, 671 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). 10 However, when the defendant’s motion is based on written materials rather than an 11 evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a “prima facie showing of jurisdictional 12 facts” to withstand the motion to dismiss. Id.at 672 (citing Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 13 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006)). The court resolves all disputed facts in favor of 14 the plaintiff. Wash. Shoe, 704 F.3d at 672. 15 Where, as here, there is no federal statute authorizing personal jurisdiction, the 16 district court applies the law of the state in which the district court sits. Mavrix Photo, 17 Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2011). California Code of Civil 18 Procedure section 410.10, California’s long-arm statute, is “coextensive” with federal due 19 process requirements. Id. Accordingly, the “jurisdictional analyses under state law and 20 federal due process are the same.” Id. 21 There are two categories of personal jurisdiction from a due process perspective: 22 general and specific. A court has general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant 23 when the defendant’s contacts with the forum are “substantial” or “continuous and 24 systematic.” Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat. Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 25 2000). The standard for establishing general jurisdiction is an exacting standard that 26 2Given this Court’s disproportionately high case load, and in the interest of conserving judicial 27 resources and expediting a decision in this case, the Court will not recount details with which the parties are intimately familiar. To be clear, the Court has considered all evidence and arguments in the record, 28 but it limits its written decision to only that which is necessary to resolve the parties’ instant arguments. 1 requires the defendant’s contacts to approximate physical presence in the forum state. 2 Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004). Specific 3 personal jurisdiction, on the other hand, exists when a defendant’s “in-state activity is 4 continuous and systematic and that activity gave rise to the episode-in-suit.” Goodyear 5 Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2853 (U.S. 2011) (citing Int’l 6 Shoe, 326 U.S. 317) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “the commission of 7 certain ‘single or occasional acts’ in a State may be sufficient to render a [defendant] 8 answerable in that State with respect to those acts . . . .” Id. (citation omitted). 9 A court granting a motion to dismiss a complaint must then decide whether to 10 grant leave to amend. Leave to amend should be “freely given” where there is no 11 “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, . . . undue prejudice 12 to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of the 13 amendment . . . .” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Eminence Capital, LLC v. 14 Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (listing the Foman factors as those to 15 be considered when deciding whether to grant leave to amend). Not all of these factors 16 merit equal weight. Rather, “the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party . . . 17 carries the greatest weight.” Id. (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 18 185 (9th Cir. 1987)). Dismissal without leave to amend is proper only if it is clear that 19 “the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.” Intri-Plex Techs. v. Crest Group, 20 Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing In re Daou Sys., Inc., 411 F.3d 1006, 21 1013 (9th Cir. 2005); Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 22 1989) (“Leave need not be granted where the amendment of the complaint . . . 23 constitutes an exercise in futility . . . .”)). 24 According to WABCO Holdings, dismissal is warranted because it lacks the 25 requisite contacts with this state to show that it should be subjected to this Court’s 26 jurisdiction. Indeed, WABCO Holdings is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal 27 place of business in Bern, Switzerland. Nor, WABCO Holdings contends, has it ever 28 /// 1 purposefully availed itself of this California forum (i.e., it did not manufacture or sell the 2 product underlying Plaintiff’s claims). 3 Plaintiff concedes the truth of the foregoing averments, but argues that WABCO 4 Holdings should nonetheless be held to answer here because it is the successor in 5 interest to Meritor WABCO Vehicle Control Systems (“Meritor WABCO”), the entity 6 Plaintiff contends actually designed, manufactured, supplied and/or distributed the 7 relevant Beryllium products. Plaintiff then proceeds to present all of the reasons how 8 Meritor WABCO availed itself of this forum. 9 As WABCO Holdings points out, there is a fundamental problem with Plaintiff’s 10 argument: 11 Plaintiff is apparently confusing possible “successor liability” in tort with jurisdiction. Whether a defendant may be liable for 12 the obligations of another (which is not demonstrated here, and which WABCO Holdings Inc. does not concede) is an 13 entirely different inquiry than whether jurisdiction is proper. Tort looks to the relationship of the entities to each other. 14 Jurisdiction looks to the relationship of the defendant and the forum. 15 16 Def.’s Reply, ECF No. 14, at 6. Because the focus is on the Defendant itself, not on any 17 affiliates, and because there is no evidence before the Court indicating that WABCO 18 Holdings has even the barest contacts with California, WABCO Holdings’ Motion is 19 GRANTED. See Holland America Line Inc. v. Wartsila North America Inc., 485 F.3d 20 450, 459 (9th Cir. 2007) (“It is well established that, as a general rule, where a parent 21 and a subsidiary are separate and distinct corporate entities, the presence of one . . . in 22 a forum state may not be attributed to the other . . . . ”).3 Finally, because Plaintiff has 23 failed to allege any facts indicating that jurisdictional discovery might produce any 24 evidence leading to a conclusion that jurisdiction has been established, his request for 25 discovery is DENIED without prejudice. 26 /// 27 3The allegation that a separate subsidiary of WABCO Holdings at one point owned a piece of property in California is also unpersuasive because Plaintiff has not shown any evidence to link the facility 28 directly to WABCO Holdings. WAU VME CYMO eerel OY VI 1 CONCLUSION 2 3 For the reasons set forth above, WABCO Holdings’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF 4 | No. 10) is GRANTED with leave to amend. Not later than twenty (20) days following the 5 || date this Order is electronically filed, Plaintiff may (but is not required to) file an amended 6 | complaint. If no amended complaint is timely filed, the causes of action dismissed by 7 || virtue of this Order will be deemed dismissed without leave to amend upon no further 8 || notice to the parties. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 DATED: May 21, 2020 f ( Z Ke " MORRISON C. EN _J 42 UNITED STATES DISTRICT 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28