McClory et al v. Keen, Jerald the Estate of
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - granting 6 Motion to Dismiss. This court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that this court has either general or specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Accordingly, Defendants motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 10/6/2016. (las)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
VALERIE J. MCCLORY, an individual,
and MICHAEL A. MCCLORY, an
individual, jointly as husband and wife,
and severally as individuals;
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:15-cv-778-PMW
v.
(The Estate of) JERALD KEEN, deceased,
Defendant.
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
On April 12, 2016, all parties consented to having United States Magistrate Judge Paul
M. Warner conduct all proceedings in the case, including entry of final judgment, with appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 73. Before the court is (the Estate of) Jerald Keen’s (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss.2
The court has carefully reviewed the written motion and memoranda submitted by the parties.
Pursuant to civil rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the
District of Utah, the court has concluded that oral argument is not necessary and will determine
the motion on the basis of the written memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1(f).
Valerie and Michael McClory (“Plaintiffs”), residents of Utah, visited Hawaii as guests
of Defendant, a resident of California. During the trip, on November 5, 2013, Plaintiffs were
1
See docket no. 14.
2
See docket no. 6.
1
passengers in a rental car driven by Defendant. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant operated the
vehicle in a negligent manner and caused an automobile accident in which Plaintiffs suffered
serious bodily injuries. Following the accident, Plaintiffs sought medical treatment in Utah.
On November 11, 2015, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant in Utah for injuries
sustained as a result of the accident. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction on the grounds that Defendant does not have sufficient minimum contacts with Utah.
“Where the court’s jurisdiction is contested, the plaintiff has the burden of proving
jurisdiction exists.” AST Sports Sci., Inc. v. CLF Distrib. Ltd., 514 F.3d 1054, 1056 (10th Cir.
2008). “Where a district court considers a pre-trial motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie
showing of personal jurisdiction to defeat the motion.” Id. at 1056-57. “When evaluating the
prima facie case, the court is bound to resolve all factual disputes in favor of the plaintiff in
determining whether he has made the requisite showing.” Id. “However, only the well pled
facts of plaintiff’s complaint, as distinguished from mere conclusory allegations, must be
accepted as true.” Wenz v. Memery Crystyal, 55 F.3d 1503, 1505 (10th Cir. 1995).
“To obtain personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a diversity action, a
plaintiff must show that jurisdiction is legitimate under the laws of the forum state and that the
exercise of jurisdiction does not offend the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
ClearOne Commc’ns, Inc. v. Bowers, 643 F.3d 735, 763 (10th Cir. 2011) (quotations and citation
omitted). Utah’s long-arm statute supports asserting “jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted
by the due process clause.” First Mortgage Corp. v. State Street Bank and Trust Co., 173
F.Supp.2d 1167, 1173 (D. Utah 2001). “Personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant
2
satisfies due process if there are sufficient ‘minimum contacts between the defendant and the
forum State.’” Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Thyssen Min. Const. of Can. Ltd., 703 F.3d 488, 493
(10th Cir. 2012) (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291
(1980)). “The minimum contacts may support specific jurisdiction or general jurisdiction.” Id.
Specific jurisdiction requires that a defendant “have sufficient minimum contacts with the
forum state, and jurisdiction over the defendant cannot offend ‘traditional notions of fair play
and substantial justice.’” Id. (quoting Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., Solano
Cnty., 480 U.S. 102, 113 (1987)). Specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is
established “if the defendant has ‘purposefully directed’ his activities at residents of the forum,
and the litigation results from alleged injuries that ‘arise out of or relate to’ those activities.”
Benton v. Cameco Corp., 375 F.3d 1070, 1075 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting Burger King Corp. v.
Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985)). However, “[w]here a court’s exercise of jurisdiction does
not directly arise from a defendant’s forum-related activities, the court may nonetheless maintain
general personal jurisdiction over the defendant based on the defendant’s general business
contacts with the forum state.” Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415
(1984). “Where a court has general jurisdiction over a defendant, that defendant may be called
into that court to answer for any alleged wrong, committed in any place, no matter how unrelated
to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” American Fidelity Assur. Co. v. Bank of New York
Mellon, 810 F.3d 1234, 1238 (quotations and citation omitted). However, those contacts must be
“‘so continuous and systematic as to render [him] essentially at home in the forum State.’”
Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 703 F.3d at 493 (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v.
3
Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)). “‘For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of
general jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile.’” Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919.
Plaintiffs argue that the court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant spoke daily on the telephone with his daughter in
Utah, he made an annual trip to Utah and rented the same home for three weeks to a month, he
had friends in Utah that he called on the telephone, and he sent the information about the Hawaii
trip to Plaintiffs in Utah. However, these activities fail to meet the threshold of “substantial and
continuous” activity that is required for general personal jurisdiction. Furthermore, this court
does not have specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant as the events giving rise to the
lawsuit occurred outside of Utah. The parties’ Hawaiian vacation had nothing to do with Utah.
Defendant made the reservations for the hotel and rental car in Hawaii from his home in
California. The accident occurred in Hawaii. While Plaintiffs are residents of Utah, sought
additional medical care in Utah, and retained expert witnesses in Utah, these unilateral actions of
Plaintiffs do not establish personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
Based on the foregoing, this court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that
this court has either general or specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Accordingly,
Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of October, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge
4
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?