West Wind Air LLC v. Thrush Aircraft Inc

Filing 146

ORDER denying #108 Motion. For the reasons stated in #45 at 2, the Court also denies Thursh's alternative request for leave to seek interlocutory review. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 8/7/2018. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
PLAINTIFF

WEST WIND AIR LLC, d/b/a CHRISAIR
v.

No. 5:16-cv-274-DPM
DEFENDANT/fHIRDp ARTY PLAINTIFF

THRUSH AIRCRAFT, INC.
v.

PRATT & WHITNEY CANADA
CORP. and PLANESMART AIRCRAFT
SERVICES LLC

THIRD-PARTY
DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Thrush asks the Court again to reconsider its previous Order
denying Thrush's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

NQ 36. ChrisAir has informally advised the Court that, instead of filing
a response to the new motion, it stands by its previous filings on the
Thrush-jurisdiction issue. Having considered Thrush's arguments and
the developing law, and taking the jurisdictional facts in ChrisAir' s
favor, the Court denies the motion to reconsider.
As explained in Order NQ 45 at 1, the facts in Bristol-Myers Squibb
are different than those in this stream-of-commerce case. Bristol-Myers

Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773,
582 U.S._ (2017). And the new cases Thrush cites - none of which bind
this Court- don't alter the Court's conclusion that Thrush has sufficient

minimum contacts with Arkansas. Thrush uses those cases to argue its
key point that a defendant's general contacts with the forum that are
unrelated to the underlying case aren't enough to support specific
jurisdiction. That's correct. Bristol-Myers Squibb, 137 S. Ct. at 1781. But
Thrush's narrow view of which contacts "relate to" ChrisAir' s claims
eliminates that element from the jurisdictional analysis.

This case

"arises from" Thrush's sale of an airplane to ChrisAir in Arkansas
through Mid-Continent. NQ 36 at 6. Beyond that, Thrush also has
Arkansas contacts that "relate to" this case-Thrush's targeting the
state through its regional dealer network- because, as the Court has
said, that network is the only way any Thrush product reaches any
Arkansas customer. Ibid. Eighth Circuit precedent, which this Court
must follow absent binding contrary authority, supports this
conclusion.

E.g., Vandelune v. 4B Elevator Components Unlimited,

148 F.3d 943, 947-948 (8th Cir. 1998).

Notwithstanding ChrisAir's

citation of the Arkansas Court of Appeals' decision in Lawson v.

Simmons Sporting Goods, Inc., 2017 Ark. App. 44, 511 S.W.3d 883 (2017),
this Court did not rely on that decision. The 180° turn in that nonstream-of-commerce case, post Bristol-Myers Squibb, does not affect this
Court's analysis in this case. 2018 Ark. App. 343, _

-2-

S.W.3d _

(2018).

*

*

*

Motion, NQ 108, denied. For the reasons stated in NQ 45 at 2, the
Court also denies Thrush's alternative request for leave to seek
interlocutory review.
So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr. v
United States District Judge

-3-