Brunner Aerospace, LLC v. MD Helicopters, Inc.

Filing 14

ORDER granting 4 Motion to Dismiss; 5 Sealed Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRUNNER AEROSPACE, L.L.C.,
Case No. 16-13561
Plaintiff,
Honorable John Corbett O’Meara
v.
MD HELICOPTERS, INC.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
NOVEMBER 21, 2016 MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter came before the court on defendant MD Helicopters’ November 21,
2016 motion to dismiss. Despite the parties’ stipulation to an extension of time to file
a response to the motion, plaintiff Brunner Aerospace failed to file a response. No
oral argument was heard.
Defendant asserts that the court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over it
because plaintiff Brunner’s claims “are not related to and do not arise out of any
contacts between [Defendant] and Michigan.” Def.’s mot. at 1. Defendant further
contends that the court lacks general jurisdiction “because [Defendant] does not have
contacts with Michigan sufficient to render [Defendant] essentially at home in the
state.” Id.

Defendant also asserts that the “parties entered into a valid and binding forumselection clause designating the Superior Court of Arizona, County of Maricopa, as
the court with ‘exclusive’ jurisdiction over a dispute between the parties.” Id. at 2.
Therefore, Defendant moves the court to dismiss this case under the doctrine of forum
non conveniens.
Plaintiff Brunner bears the burden of proving that personal jurisdiction exists.
Carrier Corp. V. Outokumpu Oyj, 673 F.3d 430, 449 (6th Cir. 2012). In the face of a
properly supported motion to dismiss, “the plaintiff may not stand on his pleadings
but must, by affidavit or otherwise, set forth specific facts showing that the court has
jurisdiction.” Theunissen v. Matthews, 935 F.2d 1454, 1458 (6th Cir. 1991). By
failing to file a response, Brunner has failed to carry its burden to prove personal
jurisdiction exists. Accordingly, the court must grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Even if the court found that it could exercise personal jurisdiction over
Defendant, it would still dismiss the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens,
as the parties’ contractual agreement contains an express forum-selection clause
designating Arizona state court as the exclusive forum for any dispute.

2

ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that defendant MD Helicopters’ November 21, 2016
motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

s/John Corbett O'Meara
United States District Judge
Date: January 6, 2017

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel
of record on this date, January 6, 2017, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

3