Avendano-Bautista v. Kimbell Gin Machinery Company et al
Filing
41
ORDER granting 37 Motion for Joinder. Bautista shall file an amended complaint naming Lubbock as defendant within fourteen (14) days hereof in conformity with this Order. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 12/04/2017. (thb)
IN THE UNITED
FOR THE
STATES DISTRICT
COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
ADRIAN AVENDANO-BAUTISTA,
*
•
Plaintiff,
*
*
KIMBELL GIN MACHINERY COMPANY,
116-108
*
Defendant.
CV
*
ORDER
Before
("Bautista")
the
Court
Motion
is
for
Plaintiff
Joinder
Adrian
of
Avendano-Bautista's
Lubbock
Electric
Corp.
("Lubbock"),
who was previously dismissed by the Court for lack
of
jurisdiction.
personal
(Docs.
29,
37.)
response in opposition to this motion.
Lubbock
(Doc. 39.)
filed
Accordingly,
Bautista's motion is fully briefed and is ripe for review.
the reasons that follow,
I.
On July 6,
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
2017, Bautista brought a claim against Lubbock
after he was injured
while using the 2015 Kimbell Gin (the "Gin").
March 28,
2017,
For
Bautista's motion is GRANTED.
and Kimbell Gin Machinery Company ("KGM")
(Doc.
1.)
On
this Court granted Lubbock's motion to dismiss
after the Court found that Lubbock had not subjected itself to
the Court's jurisdiction simply because it delivered the Gin to
Collins Gin,
Inc.,
a Georgia customer.
(Doc.
29.)
a
Bautista
then discovered a manual for the Gin that included Lubbock's
contact information and an invitation for customers to contact
Lubbock for technical advice.
(Doc. 37.)
On August 15, 2017,
Bautista moved to have the Court join Lubbock as a party.
II.
As
Rules
an
15
initial
and
Lubbock,
on
DISCUSSION
matter,
Bautista
moves
to
of
20
Federal
Rules
of
the
the
other
hand,
essentially asking the Court to
and therefore must
comply with
complains
add
Lubbock
Civil
that
(11th Cir. 1984).
restricted
to
entered.
this
Id.
case,
Since
the
amend should be
E.I.
DuPonte
2006)
Court
(listing
Rule
60.
the
However,
15
Turning
to
the
Georgia
&
in
customer,
final
judgement
Co.,
limited
Rules
after
is guided by
Therefore,
name
60
final
Nemours
under
Lubbock's
or
is
a court
may
Czeremcha v.
AFL-CIO,
724
F.2d
The relief Bautista seeks is only
freely granted.
De
appropriate) .
seeks
59
Procedure.
reconsider its earlier decision
Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers,
1552, 1556
under
Bautista
grant leave to amend a previously dismissed claim.
Rules
Id.
has
the
not
F.3d
circumstances
Bautista
been
principal
See Fla.
470
judgment
may
has
been
entered
that
in
leave to
Evergreen Foliage v.
1036,
1041
where
pursue
(11th
relief
the
Cir.
is
not
relief
he
and 20.
merits,
KGM's
Bautista
manual
Lubbock
and
subjected
argues
that
delivering
itself
to
by
the
placing
Gin
the
to
a
Court's
jurisdiction.
A
defendant
when
both
procedural
due
process
satisfied.
court
may
the
state
Clause
Sculptchair,
the
Due
Process
contacts with the
jurisdiction
long-arm
of
the
v.
Inc.
623, 626 (11th Cir. 1996).x
under
exercise
Century
over
statute
Fourteenth
and
Ltd.,
94
The
Corp.
heart
of
defendant's
haled
Clause
if
the
(11th
Eurisol,
488
test
the
a
Inc.
Procedural
Cir.
for
gives
court
v.
in
defendant
the
Courts
forum state.
Placing
to
an
has
minimum
item in
forum
focus
state.
on
the
(11th
Process
notice
Intern.,
the
Cir.
is
that
it
593
F.3d
privilege
the
of
the
might
Diamond
whether
2007).
whether
See
Inc.,
stream of
availment.
Superior
Court
However,
purposeful
who
Due
925
Sloss
be
Crystal
1249,
1267
defendant
has
doing business
Id.
find purposeful
defendant
922,
reasonable
Food Movers
2010) .
F.3d
purposefully availed itself to
in the
F.3d
forum state and exercising jurisdiction would
conduct
into
Brands,
v.
are
Personal jurisdiction is appropriate
not offend notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Indus.
the
Amendment
Arts,
a
of
See Asahi
California,
placed
480
availment
the
commerce
may
item
into
Metal
U.S.
be
is
insufficient
Industry Co.
102,
112
demonstrated
the
stream
of
v.
(1987).
if
the
commerce
engaged in additional conduct,
such as designing the product for
the
or
forum
state;
advertising
marketing
in
that
state;
1 This Court already found that Georgia's long-arm statute was satisfied so
this
discussion will be
limited to Due
Process.
or
establishing
channels
residents.
Id.
for
This
providing
is
the
"stream
endorsed by a plurality in Asahi.
Inc.,
985
F.2d
1534,
1548
advice
of
to
commerce
Vermeulen v.
(11th Cir.
that
1992).
state's
plus"
test
Renault U.S.A.,
Since
this
is
the
narrowest test endorsed by the Supreme Court,
satisfying it will
demonstrate personal
v.
F.2d 489,
493 n.5
In
this
support
(11th Cir.
case,
offer
jurisdiction.
in
SSE,
Inc.,
argues
manual
has
that
Lubbock's
established
a
technical
channel
providing advice to Georgia customers.
See Ray v. Ford,
2756655,
2008)
at
*6
jurisdiction
warranty
effort
contact
purposeful
availment
future
based
process) .
to
Lubbock
(M.D.
Lubbock
Georgia
its
contact
delivering
to
the
responds
as
a
Court
to
KGM's
Georgia
to
a
Georgia
engage
in
future
it
the
does
require
in
Gin
so
(finding
has
Court
not
actual
manual,
contact,
cannot
find
When
invited
Therefore,
Lubbock
an
purposeful
Lubbock
and
the
made
contact.
customer.
customer
2008 WL
in
not
view
for
personal
involvement
that
customers
number
with
11,
defendant's
The
narrowly
placed
July
the
availment.
so
customer
Ala.
on
843
1988).
Bautista
KGM's
See Morris
inviting
has
by
that
subjected
itself to a Georgia court's jurisdiction.
Next,
once
minimum contacts,
that
personal
a
plaintiff
a
court will
jurisdiction
has
demonstrated
consider
comports
other
with
the
defendant's
factors
fair
to ensure
play
and
substantial
462,
476
justice.
Burger
(1985) .
including the
A
King Corp.
fairness
v.
Rudzewicz,
analysis
burden on either party,
471
considers
factors
judicial efficiency,
the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute.
477.
These
considerations
U.S.
will
sometimes
and
Id. at
show
the
reasonableness of personal jurisdiction upon a lesser showing of
minimum
contacts.
recognize
that
Id.
When
"modern
analyzing
transportation
these
and
factors,
courts
communication
have
made it much less burdensome for a party sued to defend himself
in
a
State
where
Int'l Life Ins.
he
Co.,
engages
355 U.S.
in
economic
220,
223
Neither party has addressed this
the
factors weigh
activity."
issue but the Court finds
in favor of exercising personal
jurisdiction.
itself
alleviated
mentioned
See
Oliver
(11th
Cir.
company to
burden).
v.
the
technological
Merritt
1992)
Dredging
(requiring
advances
Co.,
a
the
other
hand,
and effective
Truetzschler,
forcing
piecemeal
and
waste
relief."
111 F. Supp.
litigation
judicial
could
2d 1281,
also
resources.
979
Louisiana
claim in two forums would "hamper his
convenient,
Inc.,
adjudicate in Alabama would not
On
South
to
ability to
to
in
is
McGee.
827,
834
Carolina
impose a substantial
Bautista
1287
See
in Georgia
F.2d
and
Id. ; see
lead
v.
(1957).
The burden on Lubbock of having to defend
by
McGee
litigate
obtain quick,
also Marbury v.
(N.D. Ala.
2000).
inconsistent
Oliver,
979
his
F.2d
Am.
This
outcomes
at
834.
Finally,
Georgia
residents
from
Vermeulen,
has
unsafe
985
F.2d
jurisdiction over
a
strong
products
at
Lubbock
interest
that
1551.
come
Thus,
comports
in
with
protecting
into
the
exercising
traditional
its
market.
personal
notions
of
fairness.
Therefore,
Joinder
is
upon
hereby
consideration,
GRANTED.
Bautista's
Bautista
shall
motion
file
an
complaint naming Lubbock as defendant within fourteen
for
amended
(14)
days
hereof in conformity with this Order.
ORDER ENTERED
December,
at Augusta,
Georgia
this
^^ day of
2017.
;hief judge
:d/states district court
:rn
district
of
Georgia
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?