Brown v. Liberty County Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 47

ORDER granting 28 Motion to Change Venue; The Court dismisses the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. ORDER denying as moot 37 Motion for Leave to File Document; ORDER denying as moot 38 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 7/13/2021. Case terminated. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

RONNIE L. BROWN,
4

Plaintiff,

5

vs.

6
7

LIBERTY COUNTY MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY,

8

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:20-cv-00163-GMN-EJY
ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Liberty County Mutual Life Insurance

9
10

Company’s (“Defendant’s”) Motion to Change Venue and/or Dismiss, (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff

11

Ronnie L. Brown (“Plaintiff”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 32), and Defendant filed a Reply,

12

(ECF No. 34).
Also pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Supplement,

13
14

(ECF No. 37). Plaintiff did not file a Response.
Also pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No.

15
16

38). Plaintiff filed a Response, (ECF No. 45), and Defendant filed a Reply, (ECF No. 46).
For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss and

17
18

DENIES as moot the remaining Motions.

19

I.

20

BACKGROUND
This case arises from Plaintiff’s claim to insurance coverage benefits after sustaining

21

injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Grapevine, Texas. (See generally Am.

22

Compl., ECF No. 14). In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant established minimum

23

contacts with Nevada by accepting insurance premium payments from Plaintiff while Plaintiff

24

resided in Nevada. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 7). Defendant now moves this Court to dismiss the

25

Page 1 of 4

1

Complaint for want of personal jurisdiction or to change venue. (See Mot. Dismiss or Change

2

Venue (“MTD”), ECF No. 28)

3

II.

4

LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant may

5

move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). Once a defendant

6

raises the defense, the burden falls on the plaintiff to prove sufficient facts to establish that

7

jurisdiction is proper. Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008). A plaintiff

8

can carry its burden only by presenting sufficient evidence to establish that (1) personal

9

jurisdiction is proper under the laws of the state where it is asserted; and (2) the exercise of

10

jurisdiction does not violate the defendant’s right to due process secured by the United States

11

Constitution. Ziegler v. Indian River Cty., 64 F.3d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1995).

12

When no federal statute governs personal jurisdiction, the district court applies the law

13

of the forum state. See Panavision Int’l L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir. 1998).

14

Nevada has authorized its courts to exercise jurisdiction over persons “on any basis not

15

inconsistent with . . . the Constitution of the United States.” NRS 14.065. Thus, the Due

16

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the relevant constraint on Nevada’s authority

17

to bind a nonresident defendant to a judgment of its own courts. World Wide Volkswagen Corp.

18

v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 (1980).

19

The Due Process Clause requires that the nonresident must have “certain minimum

20

contacts . . . such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair

21

play and substantial justice.’” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting

22

Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). To survive a motion to dismiss for lack of

23

personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff need only make “a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts.”

24

Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Doe v. Unocal, 248

25

Page 2 of 4

1

F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2001)). When analyzing such a 12(b)(2) motion, “the court resolves all

2

disputed facts in favor of the plaintiff.” Id.

3

III.

4

DISCUSSION
Defendant primarily argues that the Court should dismiss the Complaint because the

5

Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant. (See MTD, ECF No. 28). Defendant

6

contends, with supporting evidence, that it has no contacts with Nevada as Defendant operates

7

in Texas, the case concerns an insurance policy issued to a Texas resident, and Defendant has

8

had no intentional contacts with Nevada. (Id. 6:11–11:13).

9

In Response, Plaintiff provides no evidence of Defendant’s contacts with Nevada. (See

10

Pl.s MTD Resp., ECF No. 32). Rather, he argues, “this Court exercised specific jurisdiction

11

over defendant based upon its findings that ‘when Defendant offered Plaintiff an insurance

12

policy and accepted Plaintiff’s premium payments, Defendant LIBERTY knew that: (a)

13

Plaintiff was a resident of Nevada; (b) the subject automobile would be operated and

14

maintained on a regular basis by Plaintiff in Nevada; and (c) Plaintiff was responsible and

15

would be making payment of all premiums associated with the 2014 policy changes in

16

question.” (Id. 2:14–19) (quoting Order, ECF No. 23).

17

Plaintiff is mistaken. The Court did not hold that it had personal jurisdiction over

18

Defendant. Rather, when assessing whether to grant leave to amend, the Court concluded that

19

amendment would not be futile because the Proposed Amended Complaint adequately alleged

20

facts that would provide personal jurisdiction over Defendant, and Defendant did not address

21

the newly alleged facts in its Response to the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.

22

(See Order 5:10–20). Accordingly, the Court permitted leave to amend and denied the Motion

23

to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as moot. (Id.). However, the Court did not make a

24

“finding” that it could properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant. (Id.).

25

Page 3 of 4

Now that Defendant has renewed its jurisdictional motion, Plaintiff bears the burden to

1
2

provide evidence substantiating the allegations that, if true, would provide personal jurisdiction

3

over Defendant. Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1015; Ziegler, 64 F.3d at 473. Plaintiff fails to provide

4

any evidence in rebuttal. Plaintiff bears the burden to furnish evidence indicating that the Court

5

may properly exercise jurisdiction over Defendant, and his failure to do so is fatal to his ability

6

to maintain his action in this Court. Accordingly, the Court grants dismissal of the case for lack

7

of personal jurisdiction.

8

IV.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Change Venue and/or Dismiss, (ECF

No. 28), is GRANTED. The Court dismisses the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Supplement, (ECF No.
37), is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 38),
is DENIED as moot.
The Clerk of Court shall close the case.
Dated this 13 day of July, 2021.
___

17
18
19
20

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21
22
23
24
25

Page 4 of 4