FILED Oct 17 2019, 10:03 am
CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES CADORATH AEROSPACE Frederick R. Hovde LAFAYETTE, LLC, AND CADORATH Nicholas C. Deets AEROSPACE, INC. William F. Eckhart Douglas B. Bates Hovde Dassow & Deets, LLC Chelsea R. Stanley Indianapolis, Indiana Stites & Harbison PLLC Jeffersonville, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT H-S TOOL & PARTS, INC. Pfenne P. Cantrell Jennifer M. Van Dame Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Cadorath Aerospace Lafayette, October 17, 2019 LLC, Cadorath Aerospace, Inc., Court of Appeals Case No. and H-S Tool & Parts, Inc., 18A-CT-2953 Appellants-Defendants, Appeal from the Marion Superior Court Rolls-Royce Corporation, Inc., The Honorable Patrick J. Dietrick, Defendant, Judge Trial Court Cause No. v. 49D12-1703-CT-9915
Colleen Ricks, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Brandon Seth Ricks; Cynthia
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2953 | October 17, 2019 Page 1 of 17 Cobb, as Executrix of the Estate of Steven Wallace Cobb; and Brendan Mullen, Appellees-Plaintiffs
Baker, Judge.
[1] Following a helicopter crash in 2015, Colleen Ricks, Cynthia Cobb, and
Brendan Mullen (the Accident Victims) sued Cadorath Aerospace Lafayette,
LLC and Cadorath Aerospace, Inc. (the Cadorath Defendants), along with H-S
Tool & Parts, Inc. (H-S Tool), and the Rolls-Royce Corporation, Inc. (Rolls-
Royce), in Indiana. The Accident Victims alleged that the collective Appellants
negligently repaired the helicopter engine, causing the crash. The Cadorath
Defendants and H-S Tool moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction,
arguing that they did not have sufficient minimum contacts with the state of
Indiana. The trial court summarily denied their motions.
[2] In this consolidated interlocutory appeal, the Cadorath Defendants and H-S
Tool contend that the trial court erred when it denied their motions to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that (1) the Cadorath Defendants and
H-S Tool did not automatically consent to jurisdiction in Indiana simply
because there is a forum-selection clause or an indemnity provision in an
unrelated contract; (2) there are insufficient minimum contacts between the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2953 | October 17, 2019 Page 2 of 17 Cadorath Defendants, H-S Tool, and the state of Indiana to establish specific
personal jurisdiction; and (3) even if there are sufficient minimum contacts,
Indiana’s jurisdiction over this case would be unreasonable and would offend
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Finding that there are
insufficient minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction, we reverse.
Facts 1
The Parties and the Accident
[3] The Cadorath Defendants—Cadorath Aerospace Lafayette, LLC (Cadorath
LLC) and Cadorath Aerospace, Inc. (Cadorath, Inc.)—are entities that fix and
repair helicopter engine parts. Cadorath LLC conducts its services at a repair
facility in Louisiana and is organized under the laws of Louisiana.
Additionally, its principal place of business is in Louisiana. Its sole member is a
Canadian corporation. Cadorath, Inc., conducts its services at a repair facility
in Winnipeg, Canada, and its principal place of business is also in Winnipeg.
Neither organization provides repair or maintenance services in Indiana. They
have no agents or employees in Indiana, they have no facilities or property in
Indiana, they do not advertise services in Indiana, they are not registered to do
business in Indiana, and less than one percent of their revenue comes from
services provided to entities located in Indiana.
1 We held oral argument in this case on September 17, 2019, in Indianapolis. We thank both parties for their stimulating discussion and excellent oral advocacy.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2953 | October 17, 2019 Page 3 of 17 [4] H-S Tool is a Canadian corporation—established under the laws of British
Columbia—that repairs and services helicopter engine components. Its sole
place of business is in British Columbia, and it is not registered to do business in
Indiana. H-S Tool does not have a mailing address, office, or any employee that
resides in Indiana, and it does not have any property in or fiduciary tie to
Indiana aside from the infrequent transaction with an Indiana business entity.
Also, there are no H-S Tool distributors, agents, or warehouses in Indiana.
[5] Rolls-Royce2 is an Indiana corporation that predominantly manufactures luxury
automobiles. However, in the context of this appeal, Rolls-Royce writes and
publishes manuals and other technical documents concerning helicopter
engines—including the one pertinent to this case. It also manufactures
helicopter engines. Its principal place of business is in Indianapolis.
[6] The Accident Victims include Colleen Ricks, as personal representative of
Brandon Ricks, who died in the helicopter accident; Cynthia Cobb, as executrix
of the estate of Steven Cobb, who also died in the helicopter accident; and
Brendan Mullen, who was severely injured in the accident. Brandon and
Colleen Ricks were residents of Oklahoma, Steven and Cynthia Cobb were
residents of Mississippi, and Brendan Mullen is a resident of Montana.
2 Rolls-Royce did not move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and is, therefore, not a party to this interlocutory appeal. However, its involvement with this case is crucial to our legal analysis.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2953 | October 17, 2019 Page 4 of 17 [7] The accident occurred on March 30, 2015, in Saucier, Mississippi, after the
Rolls-Royce Model 250 helicopter engine allegedly failed. The Accident
Victims claim that the Cadorath Defendants and H-S Tool performed negligent
repair work on the outer combustion case (OCC) of the Rolls-Royce engine
sometime after an OCC overhaul in 2003.
The Cadorath Defendants and Rolls-Royce
[8] On March 15, 2004, Cadorath, Inc., entered into an Authorized Repair Facility
agreement (ARF) with Rolls-Royce. Cadorath LLC did the same with Rolls-
Royce on March 31, 2005. These ARFs contemplated that the two entities
would work together in the future to develop repair processes and to complete
off-manual repairs at these facilities. Included in these ARFs was an indemnity
provision that states, in pertinent part, as follows:
The Repair Facility agrees to indemnify and hold ROLLS- ROYCE harmless from any and all claims, demands, suits, judgment or causes of action for or on account of injury to or death of persons or loss or damage to property arising from the performance by the Repair Facility of the Repair Process except to the extent caused by the negligence or other wrongful act of ROLLS-ROYCE.
Appellants’ Joint App. Vol. IV p. 151 (emphases in original). These ARFs were
in effect at the time the Accident Victims allege the negligent repairs took place.
There is no evidence showing that Cadorath, Inc., ever worked on OCC
repairs, and the evidence shows that Cadorath LLC only ever worked on OCC
repairs in 2006 and 2008 in Lafayette, Louisiana. Additionally, Rolls-Royce has
not asserted an indemnity claim against the Cadorath Defendants. Cadorath
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2953 | October 17, 2019 Page 5 of 17 LLC utilized a repair process instruction sheet (RPIS) that followed Rolls-
Royce’s overhaul manual and utilized Parts Repair Procedures Letters (PRPL)
for recommended repairs. Cadorath LLC accessed these Rolls-Royce materials
through an online search in Louisiana. The Cadorath Defendants did not create
these RPIS, PRPLs, or manuals, nor did they work in tandem with Rolls-Royce
to develop them. Rather, Cadorath LLC followed these procedures when
making repairs, as it was obligated to do under federal law.
[9] In February 2010, the Cadorath Defendants entered into new ARFs with Rolls-
Royce, which both included a forum-selection clause. That clause reads as
follows:
The parties hereby agree that all suits, actions, proceedings, litigation, disputes or claims relating to or arising out of this Agreement shall be brought and tried in the Superior or Circuit Court of Marion County, Indiana or the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. In this regard, the parties hereby . . . (b) irrevocably consent to service of process and to the jurisdiction and venue of any of such courts, and (c) irrevocably waive any claim of inconvenient forum if any such suit, claim, proceeding, litigation, dispute or claim has been filed, brought or made in either of such courts.
Id. at 207 (emphasis added).
H-S Tool and Rolls-Royce
[10] In 2000, H-S Tool entered into an ARF, Technical Assistance, and Non-
Disclosure Agreement with Rolls-Royce. This agreement stipulated that H-S
Tool would pay “Technical Assistance Fees” to Rolls-Royce for certain repairs
of Rolls-Royce components by H-S Tool. The agreement was finalized on Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2953 | October 17, 2019 Page 6 of 17 December 8, 2000, by representatives for H-S Tool and Rolls-Royce in British
Columbia and Indianapolis, respectively.
[11] The 2000 agreement also stipulated that Rolls-Royce would provide proprietary
business information to H-S Tool so that H-S Tool could properly repair Rolls-
Royce engines. H-S Tool agreed to share similar proprietary information along
with the Technical Assistance Fees. H-S Tool’s repair facility would submit
quarterly reports to Rolls-Royce to account for all expenses, and the ARF
obligated H-S Tool to use only “Qualified Repair Processes” and repair parts
approved by Rolls-Royce. However, the actual repair procedure was developed
by H-S Tool “and was submitted to the [Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)] for approval,” H-S Tool appellant’s br. p. 30, similar to the procedure
for the Cadorath Defendants.
[12] Another section of this agreement spelled out the relationship between Rolls-
Royce and H-S Tool. It reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
The relationship between ROLLS-ROYCE and the Repair Facility created by this Agreement shall be that of Independent Contractors and not that of principal and agent.
Appellants’ Joint App. Vol. IV p. 18 (emphasis in original). Also, similar to the
ARFs signed between Rolls-Royce and the Cadorath Defendants, this ARF
contained a forum-selection clause and an indemnity provision. They are nearly
identical in language. The first is the indemnity provision, and it reads as
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2953 | October 17, 2019 Page 7 of 17 The Repair Facility agrees to indemnify and hold ROLLS- ROYCE harmless from any and all claims, demands, suits, judgments or causes of action for or on account of injury to or death of persons . . . arising from the performance by the Repair Facility of the Repair Process except to the extent caused by the negligence or other wrongful act of ROLLS-ROYCE.
Id. at 17 (emphases in original). Rolls-Royce has not asserted an indemnity
claim against H-S Tool. The second is the forum-selection clause, and it reads
as follows:
. . . The parties agree that the courts of the State of Indiana or the United States Federal Courts located in the State of Indiana, as the case may be, shall [sic] exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes which may arise under this Agreement and each of the parties irrevocably and unconditionally submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts.
Id. at 18-19.
[13] This ARF between H-S Tool and Rolls-Royce remained in effect until 2009,
nearly six years after the 2003 OCC overhaul. An H-S Tool representative
signed the new ARF on December 1, 2009, in British Columbia, and a Rolls-
Royce representative signed the new ARF on December 18, 2009, in Indiana.
The new ARF contained the same clauses about sharing proprietary
information, the relationship between the two entities as independent
contractors, the indemnity provision, and the forum-selection clause.
The Litigation
[14] On December 10, 2015, Colleen filed a negligent repair suit against the
Cadorath Defendants, Rolls-Royce, and H-S Tool in the United States District Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2953 | October 17, 2019 Page 8 of 17 Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Rolls-Royce filed a motion to
dismiss on the grounds that the Louisiana district court lacked personal
jurisdiction to hear the case. The district court granted Rolls-Royce’s motion
and transferred the case to the Southern District of Indiana. Colleen then
voluntarily dismissed her claims against the Cadorath Defendants and H-S Tool
in Louisiana and Rolls-Royce in the Southern District. Colleen then filed the
same suit against the same defendants on March 17, 2017, in the Marion
County Superior Court. Shortly thereafter, Brendan and Cynthia joined the
litigation as co-plaintiffs.
[15] H-S Tool and the Cadorath Defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of
personal jurisdiction on June 2, 2017, and on June 16, 2017, respectively. Both
plaintiffs and defendants were granted leave to amend and refile their
complaints and defenses. The trial court also granted the Accident Victims
leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery. After briefing and a hearing, on
September 14, 2018, the trial court summarily denied both the Cadorath
Defendants’ and H-S Tool’s motions to dismiss. The Cadorath Defendants and
H-S Tool now bring this consolidated interlocutory appeal.
Discussion and Decision [16] The Cadorath Defendants and H-S Tool raise three main arguments on appeal,
which we consolidate and restate as follows: did the Cadorath Defendants or H-
S Tool have sufficient minimum contacts with Indiana—either through their
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2953 | October 17, 2019 Page 9 of 17 actions pertinent to the Accident Victims’ claim or through their contracts with
Rolls-Royce—to establish specific jurisdiction?3
[17] “[W]e review a trial court’s determination regarding personal jurisdiction de
novo.” Munster v. Groce, 829 N.E.2d 52, 57 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). If the trial
court has made findings of jurisdictional facts, those findings are reviewed for
clear error if based on in-court testimony. Id. However, because the trial court
here did not make findings of fact or conclusions of law, “our review of the trial
court’s personal jurisdiction ruling is entirely de novo.” Id.
Minimum Contacts
[18] Our understanding of specific jurisdiction is well established:
“Specific jurisdiction exists when a lawsuit arises from or is closely related to a defendant’s minimum contacts with or substantial connection to the forum state.” Boyer [v. Smith, 42 N.E.3d 505, 510 (Ind. 2015)]. In other words, specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment. Id. A single contact with the forum state may be sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction over a defendant, if it creates a “substantial connection” with the forum state and the suit is related to that connection. McGee v. Int’l Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.E.2d 223 (1957).
Simek v. Nolan, 64 N.E.3d 1237, 1242-43 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016); see generally Int’l
Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Office of Unempl’t and Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316
(1945). In other words, for a state court to exercise specific jurisdiction over an
3 We need only conduct a specific jurisdiction analysis because all parties have conceded that Indiana does not have general jurisdiction over the Cadorath Defendants or H-S Tool.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2953 | October 17, 2019 Page 10 of 17 action, “there must be an ‘affiliation between the forum and the underlying
controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the
forum State.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., S.F. Cty., 137 S.Ct.
1773, 1781 (2017) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tire Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564
U.S. 915, 919 (2011)) (brackets in original).
[19] In this case, there was no relevant activity or occurrence that took place in
Indiana. This is a negligent repair action, and the record plainly shows that no
repairs occurred here. Cadorath LLC conducts its services at a repair facility in
Louisiana and is organized under the laws of Louisiana. Its principal place of
business is in Louisiana. As for Cadorath, Inc., it conducts services at a repair
facility in Winnipeg, Canada, and its principal place of business is also in
Winnipeg. Neither organization has provided repair or maintenance services in
Indiana, and neither organization has agents, employees, facilities, properties,
services, or advertisements in Indiana.
[20] There is nearly identical evidence showing that H-S Tool had no such contacts
with Indiana. H-S Tool, a Canadian corporation established under the laws of
British Columbia, has its principal place of business in British Columbia. H-S
Tool is not registered to do business in Indiana, and it has no mailing address,
office, or any employee associated with Indiana. The record reveals that H-S
Tool did not conduct any repairs in Indiana or deliberately ship parts to Indiana
companies.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2953 | October 17, 2019 Page 11 of 17 [21] We find that there are no minimum contacts between the Appellants and the
state of Indiana related to the allegedly negligent repairs. Therefore, no specific
jurisdiction exists on this basis.
Relationships with Rolls-Royce
[22] The Accident Victims also contend that the forum-selection clauses and the
indemnity provisions contained in the ARFs established the requisite
connection between the Appellants and Indiana. Stated another way, the
Accident Victims argue that because the Cadorath Defendants and H-S Tool
agreed to certain contract provisions that would require them to litigate disputes
arising out of those contracts in Indiana, the Appellants were effectively on
notice that Indiana was a potential venue for any type of litigation and waived
any claim to the contrary. According to the Accident Victims:
. . . H-S Tool and Cadorath took purposeful action to establish a decades-long contractual relationship with Rolls-Royce in Indiana, and in doing so they consented to Indiana jurisdiction for suits arising from that relationship. These personal injury claims arise from that relationship. H-S Tool and Cadorath should have reasonably anticipated being haled into Indiana court to answer claims related to work performed under those contracts.
Appellees’ Br. p. 28.
[23] This argument is unavailing for two reasons. First, the Accident Victims are not
parties to these agreements nor are they in privity with the parties to these
agreements. See OEC-Diasonics, Inc. v. Major, 674 N.E.2d 1312, 1314-15 (Ind.
1996) (holding that only parties to a contract or those in privity with the parties
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2953 | October 17, 2019 Page 12 of 17 have rights unless a third party can show that an overriding purpose of the
contract was to impose an obligation on one of the contracting parties in favor
of a third party). “Nothing in this Agreement, expressed or implied, is intended
to confer upon any person, other than the parties hereto[] . . . any rights,
remedies, obligations or liabilities under or by reason of this Agreement.”
Appellants’ Joint App. Vol. IV at 206. As such, the Accident Victims may not
enforce the forum-selection clauses.4
[24] Second, in Bristol-Myers Squibb, the United States Supreme Court explicitly
rejected this jurisdictional approach:
Under the California approach, the strength of the requisite connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue is relaxed if the defendant has extensive forum contacts that are unrelated to those claims. Our cases provide no support for this approach, which resembles a loose and spurious form of general jurisdiction. For specific jurisdiction, a defendant’s general connections with the forum are not enough. As we have said, “[a] corporation’s continuous activity of some sorts within a state . . . is not enough to support the demand that the corporation be amendable to suits unrelated to that activity.”
Bristol-Myers Squibb, 137 S.Ct. at 1781 (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 927)
(internal citation omitted). The Accident Victims would have us employ this
same “sliding scale,” id., approach, which we may not do. The fact that two
4 The Accident Victims also argue that the indemnity provisions of the ARFs automatically force the Cadorath Defendants and H-S Tool to consent to litigation in Indiana. However, the record reveals that Rolls-Royce has not asserted an indemnity claim against the Cadorath Defendants or H-S Tool in this action, and we will not find personal jurisdiction based on prospective minimum contacts that do not yet exist.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2953 | October 17, 2019 Page 13 of 17 different organizations contract with an Indiana-based corporation does not, in
and of itself, establish the requisite minimum contacts necessary for specific
jurisdiction. See, e.g., RAR, Inc. v. Turner Diesel, Ltd., 107 F.3d 1272, 1278 (7th
Cir. 1997) (holding that more than just an ongoing relationship with a business
entity must exist to establish specific personal jurisdiction because “the action
must directly arise out of the specific contacts between the defendant and the
forum state”).
[25] The contacts between the Cadorath Defendants, H-S Tool, and Rolls-Royce
represent, at most, a watered-down version of general jurisdiction that is not
present in this case. Pursuant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, we hold that the forum-
selection clauses and the indemnity provisions in the ARFs do not create the
minimum contacts to establish specific jurisdiction.
[26] In sum, Indiana does not have personal jurisdiction over this matter. We
recognize the financial and pragmatic strain that this decision places on all
parties involved. However, we will not find personal jurisdiction when it is
plainly not present. Additionally, we have neither the necessary information
nor the judicial authority to decree exactly where the parties should litigate this
matter. We only find that the evidence and legal arguments proffered by all
parties lead us to one singular conclusion: the trial court erred.
[27] The judgment of the trial court is reversed.
Crone, J., concurs. Kirsch, J., dissents with a separate opinion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2953 | October 17, 2019 Page 14 of 17 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Cadorath Aerospace Lafayette, Court of Appeals Case No. LLC, Cadorath Aerospace, Inc., 18A-CT-2953 and H-S Tool & Parts, Inc., Appellants-Defendants,
Rolls-Royce Corporation, Inc., Defendant,
v.
Colleen Ricks, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Brandon Seth Ricks; Cynthia Cobb, as Executrix of the Estate of Steven Wallace Cobb; and Brendan Mullen, Appellees-Plaintiffs.
Kirsch, Judge, dissenting.
[28] I respectfully dissent.
[29] Rolls-Royce Corporation, Inc. (Rolls-Royce) is a Delaware corporation with
offices in Indianapolis. The defendants H-S Tool & Parts, Inc. (H-S Tool),
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2953 | October 17, 2019 Page 15 of 17 Cadorath Aerospace, LLC, and Cadorath Aerospace, Inc. (collectively, the
Cadorath Defendants) are Rolls-Royce Authorized Repair Facilities. The
tragedy which gave rise to this lawsuit relates to a helicopter engine
manufactured by Rolls-Royce and repaired by H-S Tool and the Cadorath
Defendants.
[30] The Cadorath Defendants and H-S Tool contend that they did not consent to
jurisdiction. From my perspective, they could not be more wrong. The
Cadorath Defendants and H-S Tool are Rolls-Royce Authorized Repair
Facilities because of their agreements with Rolls-Royce. Those agreements
stated that all suits relating to the agreements shall be brought and tried in
Marion County, Indiana.
[31] As noted by Judge Baker in the majority opinion, H-S Tool entered into an
Authorized Repair Facility Agreement with Rolls-Royce in 2000. Cadorath
Aerospace, Inc. did the same in March of 2004, and Cadorath Aerospace
Lafayette, LLC followed in March of 2005. At the time of the tragic accident in
2015 giving rise to these proceedings, each of the three companies had been an
Authorized Repair Facility for Rolls-Royce for more than a decade. During
this time period, representatives of the three companies travelled to the Rolls-
Royce facility in Indiana on multiple occasions.
[32] While their day-to-day business is conducted outside the state of Indiana, H-S
Tool and the Cadorath Defendants have extensive contacts with Rolls-Royce in
Indiana, and each of the three entities has consented to jurisdiction in Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2953 | October 17, 2019 Page 16 of 17 for matters relating to their agreement. Paragraph (9) of the agreements
provides:
The parties hereby agree that all suits, actions, proceedings, litigation, disputes or claims relating to or arising out of this Agreement shall be brought and tried in the Superior or Circuit Court of Marion County, Indiana or the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. In this regard, the parties hereby (a) agree that venue shall be in any of such courts, (b) irrevocably consent to service of process and to the jurisdiction and venue of any of such courts, and (c) irrevocably waive any claim of inconvenient forum if any such suit, claim, proceeding, litigation, dispute or claim has been filed, brought or made in either of such courts.
Appellants’ Joint App. Vol. IV p. 207 (emphasis added). Of particular
significance are the provisions in which the parties consent to jurisdiction and
waive any claim of inconvenient forum.
[33] The Cadorath Defendants and H-S Tool contend that the language set out
above is in an “unrelated contract.” They could not be more wrong. Indeed,
what they deem an “unrelated contract” sets out the essential terms of their
relationship to Rolls-Royce and made them Authorized Rolls-Royce Repair
Facilities. But for what they deem to be an “unrelated contract,” they would
not have been Authorized Rolls-Royce Repair Facilities, nor would they have
been hired to repair the helicopter engine here at issue.
[34] I would affirm the trial court’s order and remand for trial.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2953 | October 17, 2019 Page 17 of 17