Slocum v. Schliecher et al.

2012 DNH 055

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: March 15, 2012
• Docket: CV-11-317-PB
• Status: Published

Opinion

Slocum v . Schliecher et a l . CV-11-317-PB 3/15/12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael Slocum, Executor of the Estate of Timothy Donovan and Cathy Carter v. Civil N o . 11-cv-317-PB Opinion N o . 2012 DNH 055 Alexander Schleicher, GmbH & Co. Segelflugzeugbau, et a l .

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Timothy Donovan died in a glider accident that occurred in

Washington State. His wife and his estate have brought wrongful

death claims against (1) the German manufacturer of the glider,

Alexander Schleicher, GmbH & C o . Segelflugzeugbau (“Schleicher”),

(2) Schleicher’s Ohio-based distributer, Eastern Sailplane, Inc.,

and (3) Eastern Sailplane’s owner, John Murray. Eastern Sailplane and Murray move to dismiss the claims against them for

lack of personal jurisdiction.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In objecting to a motion to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of persuading the

court that personal jurisdiction exists. Astro-Med, Inc. v .

Nihon Kohden Am., Inc., 591 F.3d 1 , 8 (1st Cir. 2009). Because I

have not held a hearing on the motion, plaintiffs must make a prima facie showing that the court has personal jurisdiction over

Murray and Eastern Sailplane. Cossaboon v . M e . Med. Ctr., 600

F.3d 2 5 , 31 (1st Cir. 2010).

A prima facie showing requires plaintiff to “proffer[]

evidence which, if credited, is sufficient to support findings of

all facts essential to personal jurisdiction.” Lechoslaw v . Bank of Am., N.A., 618 F.3d 4 9 , 54 (1st Cir. 2010) (internal quotation

marks omitted). I will consider plaintiffs’ facts to the extent

they are supported by the evidence and consider the facts offered

by Murray and Eastern Sailplane “to the extent that they are

uncontradicted.” Cossaboon, 600 F.3d at 31 (internal quotation

marks omitted). Despite the liberality of the prima facie

standard, I will not “credit conclusory allegations or draw

farfetched inferences.” Negron-Torres v . Verizon Commc’ns, 478

F.3d 1 9 , 23 (1st Cir. 2007). Plaintiffs bear “‘the ultimate burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that

jurisdiction exists.’” Lechoslaw, 618 F.3d at 54 (quoting Adams

v . Adams, 601 F.3d 1 , 4 (1st Cir. 2010)).

II. ANALYSIS

A. Law

Personal jurisdiction in a diversity action over non-

resident defendants depends on satisfying the requirements of the

2 forum state’s long-arm statute and the due process requirements

of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Cossaboon, 600 F.3d at 29 n.1;

N . Laminate Sales, Inc. v . Davis, 403 F.3d 1 4 , 24 (1st Cir.

2005). New Hampshire’s long-arm statutes, RSA § 293-A:15.10 and

RSA § 510:4, extend personal jurisdiction to the extent allowed

by due process.1 Hemenway v . Hemenway, 159 N.H. 6 8 0 , 685 (2010); see also N . Laminate Sales, 403 F.3d at 2 4 ; Jet Wine & Spirits,

Inc. v . Bacardi & Co., Ltd., 298 F.3d 1 , 7 (1st Cir. 2002).

A court may exercise either general or specific personal

jurisdiction, depending on the nature of the defendant’s contacts

with the forum state. Carreras v . PMG Collins, LLC, 660 F.3d

549, 552 (1st Cir. 2011). In this case, plaintiffs assert that

specific personal jurisdiction applies. Specific personal

jurisdiction has three parts. Adelson v . Hananel, 652 F.3d 7 5 ,

80 (1st Cir. 2011). The first part asks “whether the asserted causes of action arise from or relate to the defendant’s contacts

with the forum,” the second asks “whether the defendant

purposefully availed itself of the protections of the forum’s

laws by means of those contacts, such that the defendant could

reasonably foresee being haled into the forum’s courts,” and the

third asks “whether an exercise of jurisdiction is consistent

1 RSA is an abbreviation for New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated.

3 with principles of justice and fair play.” Carreras, 660 F.3d at

554 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). All three

requirements must be satisfied to support a finding of specific

personal jurisdiction. Negron-Torres, 478 F.3d at 2 5 .

This case turns on the relatedness requirement. The

relatedness inquiry asks whether “the cause of action [underlying the litigation] either arises directly out o f , or is related t o ,

the defendant’s forum-based contacts.” Harlow v . Children’s

Hosp., 432 F.3d 5 0 , 61 (1st Cir. 2005). When the plaintiff’s

claims sound in tort, as they do in this case, a court “must

probe the causal nexus between the defendant’s contacts and the

plaintiff’s cause of action.” Phillips Exeter Acad. v . Howard

Phillips Fund, Inc., 196 F.3d 2 8 4 , 289 (1st Cir. 1999). In

undertaking this inquiry, courts ordinarily ask both whether “the

injury would not have occurred ‘but for’ the defendant’s forum- state activity” (cause in fact) and whether “the defendant’s in-

state conduct gave birth to the cause of action” (proximate

cause). Mass. Sch. of Law v . Am. Bar Ass’n, 142 F.3d 2 6 , 35 (1st

Cir. 1998). “Although ‘strict adherence to a proximate cause

standard in all circumstances is unnecessarily restrictive,’ in

most cases, ‘the proximate cause standard better comports with

the relatedness inquiry because it so easily correlates to

foreseeability, a significant component of the jurisdictional

4 inquiry.’” Harlow, 432 F.3d at 61 (quoting Nowak v . Tak How

Invs., Ltd., 94 F.3d 7 0 8 , 715 (1st Cir. 1996).

B. Application

Plaintiffs assert that Eastern Sailplane and Murray are

liable for negligence and breach of warranty. They seek to

satisfy the relatedness requirement with respect to both causes of action primarily by citing to evidence suggesting that: (1)

Donovan and Murray exchanged numerous pre- and post-sale

communications concerning the glider at a time when Donovan was

living and working in New Hampshire; (2) Donovan arranged for

Murray to register the glider in the name of one of Donovan’s New

Hampshire corporations; (3) Murray arranged for glider parts to

be shipped to Donovan in New Hampshire; and (4) the glider was

present in New Hampshire on at least two occasions. Plaintiffs

also place substantial weight on the fact that Murray and Donovan were friends and, therefore, Murray knew that Donovan would be

receiving his communications in New Hampshire.

I am unpersuaded by plaintiffs’ arguments that these

contacts are sufficient to satisfy the relatedness requirement.

Plaintiffs’ negligence claims seek to hold Eastern Sailplane and

Murray liable for negligently failing to properly “inspect, test,

check, certify, service, repair, remove, replace, install,

overhaul, assemble, modify, alter, and otherwise maintain” the

5 glider. Compl. ¶ 66 (Doc. N o . 1 ) . Plaintiffs, however, have failed to allege any facts that would support a conclusion that any of these alleged failures occurred in New Hampshire. Several other facts also undermine plaintiffs’ personal jurisdiction argument. Neither Murray nor anyone else connected with Eastern Sailplane was located in New Hampshire during the events at issue in this case. Nor does the glider have any substantial connection to New Hampshire. Instead, it was manufactured in Germany, delivered to Murray in Maryland, transported to Ohio, and kept in a hanger in Vermont.2 Under these circumstances, evidence suggesting that the glider may have briefly been moved to New Hampshire on two occasions carries little weight. Further, although Murray communicated with Donovan when he was in New Hampshire, plaintiffs have not shown that any of those conversations are causally connected to the accident that killed Donovan in Washington. Nor can it be said that any of the defendants’ other New Hampshire contacts could in any way have given birth to plaintiffs’ negligence claims. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider them.3

2 The glider was also used for an unspecified period of time in Florida. 3 Plaintiffs present an unsupported argument that the court can base a finding of personal jurisdiction over Eastern Sailplane and Murray on the fact that it has jurisdiction over

6 Plaintiffs’ claim that the court has jurisdiction over the

breach of warranty claims is more difficult to analyze because,

at least in some circumstances, a breach of warranty claim is

sufficiently like a breach of contract claim that the relatedness

inquiry for tort and contract claims can merge. See, e.g., Jet

Wine, 298 F.3d at 10 (tort and contract aspects of relatedness

test tend to merge when considering an intentional interference

with contractual relations claim). Here, however, it is quite

clear that what plaintiffs characterize as breach of warranty

Schleicher. In certain circumstances, an agent’s actions may be imputed to the principal for purposes of determining whether personal jurisdiction exists as to the principal. See Myers v . Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir. 2001); 25 C P , LLC v . Firstenberg Mach. Co., 2009 WL 4884483, at *9 (D.N.H. Dec. 8 , 2009). I have found no cases, however, that impute the actions of the principal to the agent based on an agency relationship, as the plaintiffs suggest here. To the contrary, other courts have held that an agency or employment relationship does not allow the court to impute the principal’s or employer’s jurisdictional activities to the agent or employee. See Mosier v . Kinley, 142 N.H. 415, 422 (1997) (corporate activities cannot be imputed to an agent of the corporation for purposes of personal jurisdiction); see also Calder v . Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790 (1984) (“Petitioners are correct that their contacts with California are not to be judged according to their employer’s activities there.”); Reeve v . Ocean Ships, Inc., 2011 WL 3165765, at *3 (N.D. Ill. July 2 7 , 2011) (holding under Illinois law that “it is incorrect as a matter of law to impute the actions of a principal to its agent for the purposes of finding personal jurisdiction”); M . Shanken Commc’ns, Inc. v . Cigar500.com, 2008 WL 2696168, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 7 , 2008) (holding under New York law that the jurisdictional activities of a principal cannot be imputed to an agent). Accordingly, I reject this argument.

7 claims are in fact nothing more than a restatement of their

claims for negligence.

Breach of warranty claims are governed by New Hampshire’s

version of the Uniform Commercial Code. Kelleher v . Marvin

Lumber & Cedar Co., 152 N.H. 813, 853 (2005). Express warranties

are created by the seller’s factual representations or promises, any description of the goods, or a sample or model of goods that

becomes a basis of the bargain. RSA § 382-A:2-313. An implied

warranty of merchantability exists “if the seller is a merchant

with respect to goods of that kind,” requiring the goods to meet

certain minimum standards. RSA § 382-A:2-314. When a seller has

reason to know that goods are required for a particular purpose

and that “the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment

to select or furnish suitable goods,” an implied warranty exists

that the goods are fit for that purpose. RSA § 382-A:2-315. In the present case, plaintiffs do not attempt to base their

breach of warranty claims on the Uniform Commercial Code. Nor do

they allege that Eastern Sailplane and Murray were sellers of the

glider. Instead, their complaint makes it clear that both

defendants were at most agents for a disclosed principal who do

not thereby face liability for contract-related claims. See,

e.g., Restatement (Third) of Agency § 6.01 (2006) (agent acting

on behalf of disclosed principal not a party to contract unless

8 the agent and third party agree otherwise); see also 2 Lary

Lawrence, Lawrence’s Anderson on the Uniform Commercial Code, §

2-103:38 (3d ed. 2004) (“If the agent or employee discloses that

he or she is “selling” on behalf of an identified principal or

employer, the agent or employee is not a party to the contract

with the third person and, therefore, is not a seller in the contractual senses of the term.”).

In this case, the plaintiffs’ allegations in support of

their breach of warranty claims suggest negligence rather than

breach of contract. The plaintiffs allege exactly the same

conduct in support of their negligence claims, Count I I I , and

their breach of warranty claims, Count IV, against Murray and

Eastern Sailplane. Compare Compl. ¶ 64 with Compl. ¶ 72 (Doc.

N o . 1 ) . The plaintiffs’ allegations focus on Murray’s activities

after the glider was ordered from Schleicher rather than on Murray’s part in negotiating the initial sale. Because the

breach of warranty claims essentially restate the negligence

claims, the personal jurisdiction analysis is the same for both

sets of claims.

In the absence of evidence of relatedness, I need not

consider the purposeful availment and fairness factors. The

plaintiffs have not made a prima facie case to support personal

jurisdiction over either Murray or Eastern Sailplane.

9 IV. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, I grant Murray’s and

Eastern Sailplane’s motion to dismiss (Doc. n o . 1 8 ) .

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro Paul Barbadoro United States District Judge

March 1 5 , 2012

cc: Alisa Brodkowitz, Esq. Andru H . Volinsky, Esq. Edward J. Sackman, Esq. Harold J. Friedman, Esq. Phillip S . Bixby, Esq. Roy A . Bourgeois, Esq. Stephen J. Dibble, Esq.