Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company v. Keechi Transport LLC et al

Filing 31

MEMORAUNDUM OPINION & ORDER: Before the Court are Defendant Joseph Ulibarri's 20 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, and Defendant Scott Atkinson's 30 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. The Court fi nds it appropriate to transfer this case to the Middle District of Florida. For these reasons, the above-styled case is TRANSFERRED to the Middle District Florida. The Court further DENIES Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as moot without prejudice of refiling with the new venue. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 11/21/2022) (mmw)

Case 4:22-cv-00533-P Document 31 Filed 11/21/22

Page 1 of 7 PageID 317

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 4:22-CV-00533-P

KEECHI TRANSPORT, LLC, ET AL.,
Defendants.
MEMORAUNDUM OPINION & ORDER
Before the Court are Defendant Joseph Ulibarri’s Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, and Defendant Scott Atkinson’s
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. ECF Nos. 20, 30.
Having reviewed this case, the Court finds the Fort Worth Division is
an improper venue. See ECF No. 20, 30. Therefore, the Court finds it
appropriate to transfer this case to the Middle District of Florida. For
these reasons, the above-styled case is TRANSFERRED to the Middle
District Florida.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This insurance dispute arises out of fatal trucking accident in New
Mexico. The two individuals driving a semi-truck—including Travis
Ruiz Pizzaro and Jorge Felix Martinez Sanchez (“Decedents”)—died in
the accident. Pizzaro and Sanchez were managing members and
directors of CFT Transport, LLC (“CFT”)—a Florida business. Before
the accident, CFT transport executed an independent contractor and
equipment lease agreement with Keechi Transport, LLC (“Kechi”)—a
Texas business. The agreement states in relevant portions:
•

“THIS AGREEMENT made and executed on 11/15/2021 at Miami,
Florida.” ECF No. 25-1 at Exhibit 1.

Case 4:22-cv-00533-P Document 31 Filed 11/21/22

•

Page 2 of 7 PageID 318

“The parties to this agreement intend that the relationship between
them created by this agreement is that of a carrier and an
independent contractor and not that of an employer and employee.
No agent, employee or servant of the Contractor shall be or shall be
deemed to be the employee, agent or servant of the Carrier.” Id.

•

“None of the benefits provided by the Carrier to its employees,
including, but not limited to, compensation insurance and
unemployment insurance are available from the Carrier to the
contractor, or to the employees.” Id.

•

“This agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with
the laws of the state of Florida.” Id.

Outside of this contract, Decedents had little to no contact with Texas
beyond communications with Keechi. See ECF No. 25 at 2–5.
After forming the contract, Decedents were driving a leased Keechi
vehicle registered in Florida from New Mexico to Tennessee when they
were involved in a fatal accident. ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff then sued
seeking a declaratory judgment related to the insurance policy related
to the accident. See ECF No. 1. In response, Defendant Joseph Ulibarri
and Scott Atkinson—representatives of Decedents Piarro—moved to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. ECF Nos. 20, 30.

LEGAL STANDARD
A. Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(2)
After personal jurisdiction has been raised, the “party seeking
jurisdiction bears the burden of proof but must only present a prima
facie case.” Jones v. Artists Rts. Enf’t Corp., 789 F. App’x 423, 425 (5th
Cir. 2019). In determining whether a plaintiff met its burden, a district
court must “accept the plaintiff’s uncontroverted allegations as true and
resolve all conflicts of jurisdictional facts contained in the parties’
affidavits and other documentation in the plaintiff’s favor.” Id.

ANALYSIS
While physical presence or residency are not required, defendants
must have “certain minimum contacts . . . such that the maintenance of
the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
2

Case 4:22-cv-00533-P Document 31 Filed 11/21/22

Page 3 of 7 PageID 319

justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). The
necessary minimum contacts must arise out of a defendant’s contacts
with the forum state and not contacts that he imputes through others.
See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985). The
Supreme Court has “consistently rejected attempts to satisfy the
defendant-focused ‘minimum contacts’ inquiry by demonstrating
contacts between the plaintiff (or third parties) and the forum State.”
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014).

A. Specific Jurisdiction
The Court has no basis for asserting specific jurisdiction over
Defendants as none of the Decedents’ contacts with Keechi give rise to
purposeful availment and the cause of action does not arise out of any
contact with the forum state.
Plaintiff contends that personal jurisdiction over Defendants arises
from the independent contractor and equipment lease agreement
executed between CFT Transport and Keechi in Miami, Florida. ECF
No. 25 at 4. Plaintiff further contends that Keechi controlled Decedents’
actions from inside Texas and decedent transmitted human resource
and staffing information to Texas. Id. at 4–5. But outside of this narrow
contractual relationship, Plaintiff provides little evidence showing any
connection with Texas beyond a contract executed in Florida—with a
Florida choice-of-law clause that actively distances CFI as independent
contractors from Keechi. Id.
The contract and the use of Keechi’s equipment fails to create specific
jurisdiction for two reasons. First, the mere existence of a contractual
relationship between an independent contractor and a carrier does not
impute minimum contacts absent other factors. Gundle Lining Constr.
Corp. v. Adams Cnty. Asphalt, Inc., 85 F.3d 201, 205 (5th Cir. 1996);
Magnolia Gas Co. v. Knight Equip. & Mfg. Corp., 994 S.W.2d 684, 691–
92 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998). The required analysis must “look
[sic] to the defendant’s contacts with the forum State itself, not the
defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there.” Walden v. Fiore,
571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014). Put simply, “the plaintiff cannot be the only
link between the defendant and the forum. Rather, it is the defendant’s

3

Case 4:22-cv-00533-P Document 31 Filed 11/21/22

Page 4 of 7 PageID 320

conduct that must form the necessary connection with the forum State
that is the basis for its jurisdiction over him.” Id.
Second, courts also recognize that “an employee’s contacts with the
forum are not to be judged according to his employer’s contacts.” See
Obermeyer v. Gilliland, 873 F. Supp. 153, 157 (C.D. Ill. 1995) (citing
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790(1984)); Young v. Sullwold, 2000 U.S.
Dist. 2000 WL 1448816, at *2 (E.D. Penn. Sept. 28, 2000) (“Personal
jurisdiction over an employee does not automatically follow from
jurisdiction over his corporate employer.”) (citing Keeton v. Hustler
Mag., Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 781 n.13 (1983)). This rule logically extends

with more force to independent contractors who are substantially less
connected and protected by their employers.
In defense of the few contacts alleged, Plaintiff cites a district court
opinion as holding that the mere leasing of a truck from a Texas carrier
is enough to establish minimum contacts of a lessor. See Big Red Freight
Systems, Inc. v. Laney et al., WL 10316657 (E.D. Tex. 2020). But Big Red
is easily distinguishable from this case. In Big Red, the lease agreement
was executed in Texas and the agreement contained a Texas choice of
law and forum clause. Id. On top of availing themselves to the law of
Texas, the defendants in Big Red were trained, background checked,
and drug tested in Texas before picking up their truck from the company
headquarters. Id. Further, a second defendant—who did not sign the
contract—despite going through the same approval process and picking
up the equipment, lacked sufficient minimum contacts and was
dismissed from the case. Id. at 14–15.
Here, the contract was executed in Florida and contains a Florida
choice of law clause. ECF No. 25-1 at Exhibit 1. Decedent also did not
sign the Florida contract. Id. Beyond this, Decedents received no
training in Texas, and the truck leased to CFT was registered in Florida.
ECF No. 25-1. Further, in Plaintiff’s discovery responses, trip dispatches
and human resource’s function were also outsourced to a company in
Florida. ECF No. 27-1 at 1–3. Aside from the Florida-based contract and
loose business relationship, Plaintiff alleges no other contacts with
Texas. See ECF No. 25.

4

Case 4:22-cv-00533-P Document 31 Filed 11/21/22

Page 5 of 7 PageID 321

Accepting Plaintiffs asserted facts as true, this Court lacks specific
jurisdiction over Defendants.

B. General Jurisdiction

General jurisdiction exists when a defendant’s contacts are so

continuous and systematic to render them essentially at home in the
forum state. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408,
414, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 80 L. Ed. 2d 404 (1984). Plaintiff does not allege
that this Court has general jurisdiction over Defendants. See ECF No.
25. In any event, the Court—to be safe—notes that Plaintiff’s alleged
facts do not give rise to a continuous and systematic contact with Texas
and are tangentially related to their relationship with Keechi.
Thus, general jurisdiction is not present, and the Court finds that
Plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie case that Decedents had
sufficient minimum contacts with Texas.

C. Plaintiff’s Request for Jurisdictional Discovery
Plaintiff claims that they have made enough of a showing to allow
for jurisdictional discovery on Decedent’s contacts with Texas. See
Fielding v. Hubert, Buda Media, Inc., 415 F.3d 419, 429 (5th Cir. 2005).
But when a plaintiff has not made even a preliminary showing of
jurisdiction, discovery is not warranted. Id. at 429. As shown above,
Plaintiffs have made no showing of minimum contacts beyond the
imputed business relationship and the Florida contract.
Thus, jurisdictional discovery is not warranted.

D. Transfer of Venue
Federal venue rules state that “a district court may transfer any civil
action to any other district or division where it might have been brought”
“for the convenience of parties and witnesses [or] in the interest of
justice. . . .” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a). Decisions to transfer venue are
“committed to the sound discretion of the transferring judge, and review
of a transfer is limited to abuse of that discretion.” Jarvis Christian
College v. Exxon Corp., 845 F.2d 523, 528 (5th Cir.1988).
In determining whether transferring a civil action under § 1404,
courts consider both private and public factors in deciding whether
5

Case 4:22-cv-00533-P Document 31 Filed 11/21/22

Page 6 of 7 PageID 322

convenience or justice warrant transferring the action to that district.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1404; see also In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d
304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454
U.S. 235, 241 n.6 (1981)). The private interest factors are: “(1) the
relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of
attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems
that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive.” In re
Volkswagen of America, Inc., 545 F.3d at 315. The public interest factors
are: “(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2)
the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the
familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4)
the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws of the
application of foreign law.”
A plaintiff's original choice of forum is entitled to some deference,
which dictates that the moving party must show “that the transferee
venue is clearly more convenient.” Id. But, while a plaintiff's choice of
forum “should be respected” unless “the transferee venue is clearly more
convenient,” plaintiff's “choice of forum ... is not an independent factor
within ... the § 1404(a) analysis.” Id. at 314 n.10, 315. Rather, “a
plaintiff's choice of venue is to be treated as a burden of proof question.”
Id. at 314 n.10 (internal quotations omitted).
Due to the lack of personal jurisdiction over the Decedents, the Court
finds that the Middle District of Florida is a more appropriate venue for
the action as both Decedents were domiciled in Florida and the contract
giving rise to the relationship between Keechi and the insurance dispute
was formed in Florida. Plaintiff has further requested the Middle
District of Florida as an alternative venue. Rather than dismissing
Defendants, the Court finds that a transfer of venue is appropriate,
considering the convenience of parties and the interest of justice. ECF
No. 25 at 7.
The Court thus analyzes the private and public factors.
1. Private Interest Factors

6

Case 4:22-cv-00533-P Document 31 Filed 11/21/22

Page 7 of 7 PageID 323

As Plaintiff has stated, “this is a relatively straight forward
insurance question on the merits and plaintiff does not expect or
anticipate protracted or expensive discovery.” ECF No. 25 at 6. The
sources of proof necessary to resolve the case are easily accessible in
Florida. The first private factor therefore favors transfer. Again, this
insurance dispute is relatively straight forward and does not require
witnesses or evidence related to the actual accident in New Mexico. As
this is a straightforward insurance dispute, the second factor favors
transfer. The availability of witnesses is no less burdensome in Florida
rather than in Texas, and Plaintiff has further requested Florida as an
alternative venue. The third private factor favors transfer. Finally, the
fourth factor presents no issue as insurance disputes are often brought
in federal court and this dispute presents no strange choice of law issues.
2. Public Interest Factors
The Northern District of Texas Fort Worth Division is a notoriously
busy Court. See Sellman v. Aviation Training Consultants, LLC, No.
4:21-CV-1061-P, 2022 WL 1321554, at *3 (N.D. Tex. May 3, 2022). Texas
has little to no localized interest, and even if it did, this Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Florida is well situated to handle
this insurance dispute, and no conflict of law exists.
Thus, both the private and public interest factors favor transfer.

CONCLUSION
Having reviewed this case, the Court finds the Fort Worth Division
is an improper venue for this case and finds it appropriate to sua sponte
transfer this case to Middle District of Florida. Thus, the above-styled
case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Middle District of Florida.
The Court further DENIES Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF
Nos. 20, 30) as moot without prejudice of refiling with the new venue.
SO ORDERED on this 21st day of November 2022.

7