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)

Download PDF
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?