CREDLE et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

Filing 42

OPINION. Signed by Judge Joseph E. Irenas on 12/14/2011. (dmr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

HAZEL CREDLE as Administratrix
of the Estate of Frankie
Elijah Credle, et al.,

HONORABLE JOSEPH E. IRENAS

Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1667
(JEI/KMW)

v.

OPINION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND
APPLICATIONS, INC.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
FRIEDMAN & JAMES, LLP
Andrew V. Buchsbaum
Bernard Friedman
200 Craig Road
Manalapan, NJ 07726
and
TRAUTMANN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
Gregg D. Trautmann
262 East Main Street
Rockaway, NJ 07866
Counsel for Plaintiffs

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL DIVISION
Jill Dahlman Rosa
PO Box 14721
Washington, DC 2044
and
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Sarah Susan Keast
1425 New York Avenue NW
Suite 10100
Washington, DC 20009
Counsel for Defendant United States of America
CROWELL & MORING LLP
1

Mark Sigmund Lichtenstein
590 Madison Avenue
20th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Counsel for Defendant Science Systems and Applications, Inc.
IRENAS, Senior District Judge:
Presently before the Court is Defendant Science Systems and
Applications, Inc.’s (“Science”) Motion to Dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.1
21)

(Dkt. No.

For the following reasons, the Court will deny the Motion to

Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismiss the Motion to
Dismiss for failure to state a claim and transfer the case to the
District of Maryland.

I.
Plaintiffs are administratrices of four deceased crew
members of the F/V Lady Mary who perished when the vessel sunk
off the coast of Cape May, New Jersey on March 24, 2009.

The

vessel was equipped with a 406-MHz emergency position-indicating
radio beacon (“Beacon”), which is a tracking transmitter that
aids in the detection of distressed ships.

(Compl. ¶ 18)

Each Beacon is assigned a personalized fifteen character
hex-ID, which aids in locating and contacting the vessel.
at ¶ 20)

(Id.

Once activated, the Beacon sends a signal that is

1

Plaintiffs have invoked this Court’s admiralty jurisdiction.
U.S.C. § 1333; Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(h)(1).

2

See 28

detected by satellites.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (“NOAA”) monitors these signals and alerts the
United States Coast Guard of ships in need of emergency
assistance.

(Id. at ¶ 21)

NOAA contracted with Science to register and enter each
Beacon’s hex-ID into NOAA’s database.

(Id.)

Plaintiffs allege

that in January 2007, one of Science’s clerks entered the F/V
Lady Mary Beacon’s hex-ID incorrectly.

(Id. at ¶ 22)

As a

result, on the day the vessel began to sink, the computer could
not immediately identify the location of the F/V Lady Mary to
send emergency assistance.

(Id. at ¶ 23)

To locate the F/V Lady Mary, the NOAA had to wait for a lowearth orbiting satellite to pass over the vessel.

(Id. at ¶ 24)

This delay caused the Coast Guard to receive the emergency
assistance request eighty-seven minutes later than if the
technology had operated correctly.

(Id. at ¶ 25)

By the time

the Coast Guard arrived, two crew members were still alive, only
one of whom survived.

(Id.)

Plaintiffs allege causes of action for negligence, breach of
contract and wrongful death.

(See Compl. Counts I-V)

Defendant

Science moves this Court to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(2) for lack
of personal jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim.

(See Dkt. No. 21)

3

II.
Plaintiff bears the burden of presenting evidence
establishing a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over
each defendant.

Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93,

94 (3d Cir. 2004).

“‘[P]laintiff must sustain its burden of

proof in establishing jurisdictional facts through sworn
affidavits and competent evidence. . . At no point may a
plaintiff rely on the bare pleadings alone in order to withstand
a defendant’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction. Once the motion is made, plaintiff must
respond with actual proofs, not mere allegations.’”

Machulsky v.

Hall, 210 F. Supp. 2d 531, 537 (D.N.J. 2002) (quoting Patterson
v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 893 F.2d 595, 603-04 (3d Cir.
1990)).

In the absence of an evidentiary hearing, only a prima

facie showing is required and plaintiff is “entitled to have its
allegations taken as true and all factual disputes drawn in its
favor.”

Miller Yacht Sales, 384 F. 3d at 97.

The framework for analyzing jurisdiction over the parties is
well-known.

A federal court sitting in New Jersey has

jurisdiction over the parties to the extent provided under New
Jersey state law.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e).

New Jersey courts

may exercise personal jurisdiction to the extent permitted by the
United States Constitution.

Miller Yacht Sales, 384 F. 3d at 96.

Due process requires that each defendant have “minimum
4

contacts” with the forum state (in this case New Jersey) and that
the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the parties comports
with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).

“Minimum

contacts must have a basis in ‘some act by which the defendant
purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting
activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and
protection of its laws.”

Asahi Metal Indust. Co. v. Sup. Ct. of

Cal., 480 U.S. 102, 109 (1987) (quoting Burger King Corp. v.
Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985)).
Within this framework, personal jurisdiction may be examined
under two distinct theories: general and specific jurisdiction.
See Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F. 3d 248, 255 (3d Cir. 2001).
“General jurisdiction is based upon the defendant’s continuous
and systematic contacts with the forum and exists even if the
plaintiff’s cause of action arises from the defendant’s non-forum
related activities.

In contrast, specific jurisdiction is

present only if the plaintiff’s cause of action arises out of
defendant’s forum-related activities, such that the defendant
should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in that
forum.”

Id. at 255 (citations omitted).

“A ‘relationship among

the defendant, the forum, and the litigation’ is the essential
foundation” of specific jurisdiction.

Helicopteros Nacionales de

Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984) (quoting Shaffer
5

v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204 (1977)).
If it is determined that a defendant has purposefully
established minimum contacts with the forum state, then it
remains to be determined if exercise of specific jurisdiction
would be reasonable and “comport with notions of fair play and
substantial justice.”

Asahi Metal, 480 U.S. at 113.

This

determination requires evaluation of several factors, including
the burden on the defendant, the interest of the forum state in
resolving the dispute, and the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining
relief.

Id.

A.
First, Plaintiffs raise a waiver argument.

Unlike subject

matter jurisdiction, a defendant can waive the right to challenge
personal jurisdiction.

See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h).

Although Science

has abided by the text of the Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h), Plaintiffs
argue that the Court should nonetheless deem Science to have
waived the personal jurisdiction defense.

Plaintiffs rely

primarily on Bel-ray Co. v. Chermrite Ltd., 181 F.3d 435 (3d Cir.
1999).

There, Defendants asked for affirmative relief before

raising personal jurisdiction defenses.

See id. at 443-44.

That

case, however, does not resemble this case.
Here, Science was served on June 6, 2011.

(See Dkt. No. 5)

On August 12, 2011, Science filed the instant Motion to Dismiss
6

having only previously filed motions to appear pro hac vice (Dkt.
Nos. 18-20) and request time extensions to plead.
10)

(Dkt. Nos. 4 &

These administrative motions differ significantly from the

affirmative relief defendants sought in Bel-ray.

Defendants

cannot be deemed to have waived their right to challenge personal
jurisdiction in this case.

B.
General jurisdiction requires continuous and systematic
contacts with the State of New Jersey.
well short of this standard.

Defendant’s contacts fall

Science is not incorporated or

licensed to do business in New Jersey.
place of business in New Jersey.

Nor does Science have a

Science does not manufacture or

sell the Beacons or otherwise distribute a product in New Jersey.
Indeed, from the investigation testimony of Daniel Karlson of
NOAA, it appears that NOAA initiates all contact with Beacon
owners for the purposes of registration.

(See Pls.’ Decl. Ex. 2,

788:18-20, Dkt. No. 26) Although Science may receive information
from registrants, NOAA sends correspondence including requests
for registration and compliance decals into New Jersey.
In this regard, Science appears to merely do data entry.

(Id.)
Science

cannot be said to have continuous and systematic contact with New
Jersey.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs argue that Science’s contractual
7

relationship with NOAA, a federal government entity, should
transfer NOAA’s contacts with New Jersey to Science.

However,

this argument was specifically rejected in Calder v. Jones.

465

U.S. U.S. 783, 790 (1984) (holding that a person’s contacts “are
not to be judged according to their employer’s activities there .
. . . Each defendant’s contacts with the forum State must be
assessed individually.”).

Accordingly, this Court does not have

general jurisdiction over Science.

C.
The Court now turns to specific jurisdiction.

In O’Connor

v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., Ltd, the Third Circuit set out the
three-step framework for analyzing specific jurisdiction: (1)
whether the defendant purposefully directed its activities at the
forum; (2) whether the litigation arises out of or relates to at
least one of the contacts; and (3) whether the exercise of
jurisdiction otherwise comports with traditional notions of fair
play and substantial justice.

496 F.3d 312, 317 (3d Cir. 2007).

Here, Plaintiffs have not established the first element that defendant purposefully directed its activities at New
Jersey.

Plaintiffs argue that “[b]y contracting to perform full

operational monitoring and maintenance of every registered beacon
in the United States, [Science] deliberately chose to profit from
the government’s interaction with citizen of New Jersey.”

8

(Pls.’

Br. 19, Dkt. No. 25)

However, the personal jurisdiction analysis

does not operate under theories of agency.
cannot be imputed to Science.

The contacts of NOAA

Accordingly, this Court does not

have specific personal jurisdiction over Science.2

III.
The final issue to consider is whether to transfer this case
to the District of Maryland as Plaintiffs suggest or to dismiss
this case with prejudice as Science urges.3

“In federal court,

venue questions are governed either by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or 28
U.S.C. § 1406.

Section 1404(a) provides for the transfer of a

case where both the original and the requested venue are proper.
Section 1406, on the other hand, applies where the original venue
is improper and provides for either transfer or dismissal of the
case.”

Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 878 (3d Cir.

1995).
Most civil actions claims in federal court are governed by
28 U.S.C. § 1391.

However, “[a]n admiralty or maritime claim

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(h) is not a civil action for the purposes of
28 U.S.C. §§ 1391-1392.”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 82.

Instead, venue lies

2

Having determined that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over
Defendant Science, the Court cannot decide Science’s Motion to Dismiss for
failure to state a claim.
3

Plaintiffs have not filed an official motion to transfer. Rather,
almost as an afterthought, they ask to be transferred should they lose the
personal jurisdiction argument.

9

wherever a district court has personal jurisdiction over the
defendant.

See Sunbelt Corp. v. Noble, Denton & Asociates, Inc.,

5 F.3d 28, 31 n.5 (3d Cir. 1993).

If the court lacks personal

jurisdiction then venue is also improper.
Here, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Science so
venue is improper.
to this case.

Therefore, the provisions of § 1406(a) apply

Section 1406(a) provides: “The district court of a

district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong
division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest
of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in
which it could have been brought.”
The interests of justice favor resolving disputes on the
merits.

Plaintiffs allege that Science’s negligence caused the

death of several crew members.

These serious claims should not

be dismissed with prejudice merely because Plaintiffs erroneously
believed that Science had sufficient contacts with New Jersey.
Moreover, should this Court refuse to transfer the case,
Plaintiffs would have to litigate against Science in the District
of Maryland and against the United States in this Court, assuming
the statute of limitations would not bar Plaintiffs’ claims
altogether.

The interests of justice would not be furthered by

such a result.

Moreover, the parties agree that if this case is

to be transferred, then venue properly lies in the District of
Maryland.

Accordingly, the Court will transfer this case

10

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to the District of Maryland.

IV.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Science’s Motion to
Dismiss under 12(b)(2) will be denied and the Motion to Dismiss
under 12(b)(6) will be dismissed.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1406(a), the Court will transfer this case to the District of
Maryland.

An appropriate Order will accompany this Opinion.

Date: 12/14/11
/s/ Joseph E. Irenas
JOSEPH E. IRENAS, S.U.S.D.J.

11