West v. Tigercat International Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 20, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-05440
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 ISAAC WEST, CASE NO. C21-5440 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RENOTING 9 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING 10 TIGERCAT INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., LEAVE TO CONDUCT JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY 11 Defendants. 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Hydra Dyne Tech’s (“Hydra 14 Dyne”) motion to dismiss. Dkt. 27. The Court has considered the briefing filed in support 15 of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby rules as 16 follows. 17 I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff Isaac West alleges that a defective Tigercat LX830D Feller Buncher 19 severed his arm in October 2020 and brings claims against the corporations who 20 designed, assembled, manufactured, distributed, and/or sold the Feller Buncher. See Dkt. 21 1. Specifically, West alleges that when he opened the hood of the Feller Buncher to reach 22 the main hydraulic system’s pressure relief valve, the hood suddenly closed on his arm, 1 breaking his arm. Id. ¶¶ 5.9–5.10. He alleges that the hood assembly closed due to a 2 sudden loss of hydraulic pressure and “due to a lack of a fail-safe system to prevent the 3 Feller Buncher hood from snapping closed when the hood’s hydraulic cylinders

4 experienced a sudden pressure loss or the hydraulic system’s check valve failed, resulting 5 in a sudden pressure loss.” Id. ¶ 5.11. West had to self-amputate his arm to avoid 6 bleeding to death. Id. ¶ 5.14. 7 Hydra Dyne designs and manufactures custom hydraulic manifolds, cylinders, and 8 swivels, and contracted with Defendant Tigercat Industries, Inc. (“Tigercat”) to design a

9 hydraulic system for Tigercat’s Feller Bunchers. Dkt. 28, ¶¶ 3, 6. Hydra Dyne is 10 incorporated in Ontario, Canada, and its principal place of business is also in Ontario, 11 Canada. Id. ¶ 3. Hydra Dyne asserts that it has limited connections to Washington State 12 and that its connections are unrelated to the controversy at hand. It manufactures rotary 13 valves for Waratah Forestry Services, Ltd., a New Zealand company, and ships the parts

14 to one of Waratah’s distribution centers in Kelso, Washington. Id. ¶¶ 8–10. 15 Hydra Dyne now moves to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 12(b)(2), arguing that the Court lacks either general or specific jurisdiction over it. Dkt. 17 27. West appears to concede that the Court lacks general jurisdiction over Hydra Dyne 18 but argues that the Court can exercise specific jurisdiction. Dkt. 32. West also argues that

19 the Court should allow for jurisdictional discovery if the Court believes insufficient facts 20 have been alleged to establish specific jurisdiction over Hydra Dyne. Id. at 19. 21 22 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 “Where a defendant moves to dismiss a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, 3 the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is appropriate.”

4 Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004). When the 5 district court rules on the motion based on affidavits and discovery materials rather than 6 an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal 7 jurisdiction. See Ochoa v. J.B. Martin & Sons Farms, Inc., 287 F.3d 1182, 1187 (9th Cir. 8 2002). “Although the plaintiff cannot simply rest on the bare allegations of its complaint,

9 uncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be taken as true.” Schwarzenegger, 374 10 F.3d at 800 (internal quotations omitted). “Additionally, any evidentiary materials 11 submitted on the motion are construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and all 12 doubts are resolved in their favor.” Ochoa, 287 F.3d at 1187 (internal quotation omitted). 13 Here, West only argues that the Court has specific jurisdiction over Hydra Dyne.

14 See Dkt. 32 at 9–19. The Ninth Circuit applies a three-part test to determine whether 15 specific jurisdiction exists: 16 (1) the defendant has performed some act or consummated some transaction within the forum or otherwise purposefully availed himself of 17 the privileges of conducting activities in the forum, (2) the claim arises out of or results from the defendant’s forum-related activities, and (3) the 18 exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. 19 Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'’l, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000), 20 overruled in part on other grounds by Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et 21 L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1207 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc). The plaintiff bears the 22 burden of establishing the first two prongs. CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 1 F.3d 1066, 1076 (9th Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to the defendant “to set forth a 2 compelling case that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable.” Id. (internal 3 quotation omitted).

4 Here, the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction turns on whether Hydra Dyne has 5 sufficient minimum contacts with Washington State. See Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 6 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). Hydra Dyne’s contacts with Washington State are minimal; it 7 asserts that it ships rotary parts to Waratah’s distribution center and that this contact is 8 unrelated to the controversy at hand. Dkt. 27 at 3–5. But West argues that Hydra Dyne’s

9 own website identifies another company, Altec Industries, Inc., as a customer to whom it 10 sells products that operates in Washington State. Dkt. 32 at 4–5. West asserts that Altec 11 operates a service center location in Washington State, which on his information and 12 belief, receives replacement parts it needs to repair logging equipment containing Hydra 13 Dyne component parts from Hydra Dyne. Id.

14 “Discovery should ordinarily be granted where pertinent facts bearing on the 15 question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a more satisfactory showing of the 16 facts is necessary.” Butcher’s Union Local No. 498, United Food & Com. Workers v. 17 SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 540 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal quotation omitted). It is 18 unclear to the Court whether Hydra Dyne’s only contacts with the forum state are through

19 its dealings with Waratah or whether it has additional contacts with the forum. The 20 21 22 1 current record is insufficient to definitively resolve this issue. Therefore, the Court will 2 allow West to conduct additional, limited discovery on the issue of specific jurisdiction.1 3 III. ORDER

4 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Hydra Dyne’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 27, 5 shall be RENOTED pending additional discovery on jurisdictional facts. The parties 6 shall meet and confer and then submit a joint status report recommending a renoting date, 7 dates for supplemental briefing, and jurisdictional discovery deadlines. The report shall 8 be filed no later than January 31, 2022. The Clerk shall remove the motion from

9 consideration, subject to renoting after the parties file the requested report. 10 Dated this 20th day of January, 2022. A 11 12 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 13 United States District Judge

14 15 16 17 18 19

1 West has also moved to compel discovery from Hydra Dyne related to the Court’s 20 exercise of jurisdiction here. Dkt. 43. Hydra Dyne asserts that it has provided responsive information and objects to some requests for production as overbroad. Dkt. 49 at 4. West’s reply 21 disagrees with Hydra Dyne’s objections. Dkt. 52. To the extent that the Court needs to resolve this issue, and in light of its order of jurisdictional discovery, the Court will do so at the status 22 conference set for this afternoon.