Blanding v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts
• Decided: March 8, 2024
• Docket: 4:23-cv-11894
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 3 4 SANDRA BLANDING AND SHANEEKA Case No. 4:23-cv-11894-MRG BLANDING, 5 Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 6 v. 7 FEDX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, 8 INC., FEDEX CORPORATION, IYENGAR DELIVERY CORPORATION- 9 WORCESTER, AND KIRAN IYENGAR, Defendants. 10

11 Pending before the Court is Defendant FedEx Corporation’s motion to 12 dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal 13 jurisdiction. This motion is unopposed by Plaintiffs. After careful consideration, and 14 for the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs may file an amended 15 complaint to overcome any deficits identified herein. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiffs’ complaint names FedEx Corporation (“FedEx”) along with three 19 other defendants, and alleges negligence, negligence under the theory of respondeat 20 superior, and negligence pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 85A, based on an 21 22 alleged hit-and-run motor vehicle accident that occurred on November 27, 2022, in 23 Northborough, Massachusetts. FedEx counters that the Court lacks jurisdiction over 24 25 FedEx and that these allegations must be dismissed as a matter of law. FedEx also 26 argues that the complaint is deficient in alleging facts that directly implicate FedEx 27 in the alleged violations, and thus it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 1 2 II. LEGAL STANDARD 3 “It is axiomatic that, [t]o hear a case, a court must have personal jurisdiction 4 over the parties, that is, the power to require the parties to obey its decrees.” Hannon 5 v. Beard, 524 F.3d 275, 279 (1st Cir. 2008) (cleaned up). And it is the plaintiff who 6 bears the burden of establishing that a court has personal jurisdiction over a 7 defendant. Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC v. Alpenrose Dairy, Inc., 825 F.3d 28, 8 34 (1st Cir. 2016). When considering a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 12(b)(2), the Court may use several standards to assess whether a plaintiff has 10 carried their burden: the “prima facie” standard, the “preponderance of the 11 evidence” standard, or the “likelihood” standard. Foster-Miller, Inc. v. Babcock & 12 Wilcox Canada, 46 F.3d 138, 145-46 (1st Cir. 1995). 13 Here, the Court makes its determination without first holding an evidentiary 14 hearing, thus the prima facie standard is applied. United States v. Swiss Am. Bank, 15 Ltd., 274 F.3d 610, 618 (1st Cir. 2001). Under that standard, the Court takes 16 Plaintiffs’ “properly documented evidentiary proffers as true and construe[s] them in 17 the light most favorable to [Plaintiffs’] jurisdictional claim.” A Corp. v. All Am. 18 Plumbing, Inc., 812 F.3d 54, 58 (1st Cir. 2016); see Lin v. TipRanks, Ltd., 19 F. 4th 19 28, 33 (1st Cir. 2021) (explaining that the court takes the “specific facts 20 affirmatively alleged by the plaintiff as true” regardless of whether they are disputed 21 but, at the same time, does not credit “conclusory allegations” or “conclusory 22 averments” without “evidence of specific facts.”). Plaintiffs may not “rely on 23 unsupported allegations in their pleadings.” Platten v. HG Bermuda Exempted Ltd., 24 437 F.3d 118, 134 (1st Cir. 2006). Instead, Plaintiffs must put forward “evidence of 25 specific facts” to demonstrate that jurisdiction exists. Id. 26 Additionally. the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant must be 27 authorized by statute and consistent with the due-process requirements of the United 1 States Constitution. See A Corp., 812 F.3d at 58. Consistent with those 2 requirements, a court may exercise either general or specific jurisdiction over a 3 defendant. Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC v. Alpenrose Dairy, Inc., 825 F.3d 28, 4 35 (1st Cir. 2016). “In assessing personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, 5 a federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction is ‘the functional equivalent of a 6 state court sitting in the forum state.’” Astro-Med, Inc. v. Nihon Kohden Am., Inc., 7 591 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2009). 8 General jurisdiction exists “when [a foreign-state corporation’s] affiliations 9 with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at 10 home in the forum State.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 11 U.S. 915, 919 (2011). To be “at home” in a foreign state, a corporation must have 12 affiliations with that state so substantial that it is “comparable to a domestic 13 enterprise in that State.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 133 n.11 (2014). 14 The Supreme Court, however, has indicated that such jurisdiction will exist only in 15 the “exceptional case.” Id. at 139 n.19. Here, as Plaintiffs acknowledge, FedEx is a 16 Delaware corporation with a primary place of business in Tennessee. Further, there 17 is no evidence of any affiliations with Massachusetts in the complaint that are so 18 substantial that FedEx could be considered comparable to a Massachusetts 19 company. Accordingly, the Court may not exercise general jurisdiction over FedEx. 20 As to specific jurisdiction, it “exists when there is a demonstrable nexus 21 between a plaintiff’s claims and a defendant’s forum-based activities.” United States 22 v. Swiss Am. Bank, Ltd., 274 F.3d 610, 618 (1st Cir. 2001). But to satisfy due 23 process requirements that would subject a non-resident defendant to jurisdiction, a 24 plaintiff must establish three conditions. A Corp., 812 F.3d at 59. First, the claims 25 must directly arise out of, or relate to, a defendant’s forum-state activities. Second, 26 the defendant’s in-state contacts must represent a purposeful availment of the 27 privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, thereby invoking the benefits 1 before the state’s courts foreseeable. Lastly, the exercise of jurisdiction must be 2 reasonable. Id. 3 I. DISCUSSION 4 The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ barebones complaint in determining 5 whether to exercise jurisdiction over this defendant and noted the lack of specificity 6 therein. The sum total of Plaintiffs’ claims are: 7 8  all or some Defendants, potentially excluding FedEx, “owned and/or leased the Defendant vehicle,” see ECF No. 1-1, Exhibit “A” ¶ 9; 9  all or some Defendants, potentially excluding FedEx, were “the employer of 10 the driver of the Defendant Vehicle,” Id. ¶ 12; and 11  “the driver of the Defendant vehicle was in the course of his employment for 12 [all or some Defendants, potentially excluding FedEx,] at the time of the 13 collision.” Id. ¶ 13. 14 In all their claims, Plaintiffs use boilerplate language and the conjunction “and/or” 15 when tying the various defendants to the specific allegation. Because of this, the 16 17 claims could plausibly be interpreted to entirely exclude FedEx from the allegation- 18 at-issue. Beyond the lack of specificity as to which defendant is included in which 19 allegation, Plaintiffs also plead no specific facts tying any individual defendant’s 20 21 activities to any particular claim. Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to show the relatedness 22 needed for an exercise of specific jurisdiction. Because Plaintiffs have not satisfied 23 the relatedness condition, the Court need not consider whether FedEx purposely 24 25 availed itself of the forum state or whether specific jurisdiction would be reasonable. 26 See Phillips Exeter Acad. v. Howard Phillips Fund, 196 F.3d 284, 288 (1st Cir. 27 1999) (“An affirmative finding on each of the three elements of the test is required to support a finding of specific jurisdiction.”). Further, because the Court lacks 1 2 personal jurisdiction over FedEx, the Court need not decide whether Plaintiffs’ 3 complaint fails to state a claim against FedEx. 4 III. CONCLUSION 5 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant FedEx 7 Corporation’s motion to dismiss because the exercise of personal jurisdiction over 8 FedEx would not comport with due process. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: March 8, 2024 13 14 /s/ Margaret R. Guzman 15 MARGARET R. GUZMAN United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27