Cook v. Montanez et al, No. 6:2019cv00109 - Document 11 (S.D. Ga. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER granting Defendants' 8 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, dismissing Plaintiff's case without prejudice, denying Plaintiff's request for additional discovery, and closing this case. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 05/12/2020. (jlh) Modified on 5/12/2020 (jlh).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cook v. Montanez et al Doc. 11 Case 6:19-cv-00109-JRH-CLR Document 11 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION * KWASHAAD COOK, * * Plaintiff, * V. * CV 619-109 * JUAN JOSE MONTANEZ and SWIFT * TRANSPORTATION CO. OF * ARIZONA, LLC, * * Defendants. * ORDER Before the Court is Defendants' Juan Jose Montanez and Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC's ("Swift") motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue. (Doc. 8.) For the following reasons, the motion is granted. I. This case arises out BACKGROUND of a motor vehicle accident that place on May 20, 2018 in Glendale, California. Doc. 6, SI 7.) struck the took (See Am. Compl., On that date. Defendant Montanez's freightliner driver's side of Plaintiff Kwashaad Cook's car when Montanez crossed into Plaintiff's lane of travel, causing serious injury to Plaintiff. of Swift at the time. (See id., SIS! 9-11.) Montanez was an employee (See id., SI 8.) Dockets.Justia.com Case 6:19-cv-00109-JRH-CLR Document 11 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 7 Plaintiff is a resident of Tattnall County, Georgia. id., SI 1.) id., SI 2.) Montanez is a resident of Shafter, California. (See (See Swift is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in Phoenix, Arizona, and retains a registered agent for service of process in Marietta, Georgia. 3.) (See id., SI The Amended Complaint does not make any allegations regarding Swift's place of incorporation, but the Parties do not dispute that Swift is incorporated in Delaware. (See Pl.'s Resp., at 1- 2; Doc. 10, at 6.) Plaintiff asserts negligence claims seeks to hold Swift vicariously liable. diversity jurisdiction exists. against Montanez and Plaintiff claims that (See id., SI 5.) Defendants now move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Additionally, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Defendant Montanez in his response to the motion. (See Pl.'s Resp., Doc. 9, at n. 1.) II. LEGAL STANDARD "In the context of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in which no evidentiary hearing is held, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of jurisdiction over the movant, nonresident defendant." F.2d 489, 492 (11th Cir. 1988). Morris v. SSE, Inc., 843 A plaintiff can establish a prima Case 6:19-cv-00109-JRH-CLR Document 11 Filed 05/12/20 Page 3 of 7 facie case by presenting ""enough evidence to withstand a motion for directed verdict." Cir. 1990). This Madera v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510, 1514 {11th in ""substantial evidence turn . requires . . of such the party to quality and present weight that reasonable and fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions . . . ." Walker v. Nations Bank of Florida, 53 F.3d 1548, 1554 (11th Cir. 1995). The facts presented in the plaintiff's complaint are taken as true to the extent they are uncontroverted. If, however, allegations plaintiff the in to defendant the submits complaint, produce evidence the See Morris, 843 F.2d at 492. affidavits burden supporting challenging shifts back to jurisdiction. the the See Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc. v. Food Movers Int'l., Inc., 593 F.3d 1249, 1257 (11th Cir. 2010). If the plaintiff's complaint and supporting evidence conflict with the defendant's affidavits, the court must plaintiff. construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the See id. (citing Meier v. Sun Int'l Hotels, Ltd., 288 F.3d 1264, 1269 (11th Cir. 2002)). To determine whether a nonresident defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction, the Court must perform a two-part analysis. See id. at 1257-58. Jurisdiction must ""(1) be appropriate under the state long-arm statute and (2) not violate the Clause of omitted). the Fourteenth Amendment . . . ." Id. Due Process (quotation Case 6:19-cv-00109-JRH-CLR Document 11 Filed 05/12/20 Page 4 of 7 The Eleventh Circuit has held that ''the Georgia long-arm statute does not grant courts in Georgia personal jurisdiction that is coextensive with procedural due process,'' but instead "imposes independent obligations that a plaintiff must establish for the exercise of personal jurisdiction that are distinct from the demands of procedural due process." Id. at 1259. "[Cjourts must apply the specific limitations and requirements of O.C.G.A. ยง 9-10-91 literally and must engage in a statutory examination that is independent of, and distinct from, the constitutional analysis to ensure that both, separate prongs of the jurisdictional inquiry are satisfied." Id. at 1263. III. DISCUSSION Swift focuses Constitutional personal Due its jurisdictional Process jurisdiction: analysis. specific argument There are two jurisdiction and on types the of general jurisdiction. See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011). Specific jurisdiction "depends on an affiliation[n] between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State's regulation." Id. (alteration original) (quotation omitted). Specific jurisdiction limits courts' jurisdiction to adjudicating only the controversy establishing the jurisdiction. 4 See id. Because the Case 6:19-cv-00109-JRH-CLR Document 11 Filed 05/12/20 Page 5 of 7 underlying controversy in this case was a motor vehicle accident in California, there is no affiliation between the controversy and Georgia and no specific jurisdiction. This leaves general jurisdiction. "'A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign . . . corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so ^continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home in the forum State." Id. (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Wash. Office of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 317 (1945)). A corporation is regarded as "at home" in the state it is incorporated in and in the state where its principal place of business is located. A.G. V. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137 (2014). See Daimler However, those are not the only possible locations where a corporation may be subject to general jurisdiction. See id. ("Goodyear did not hold that a corporation may be subject to general jurisdiction only in a forum where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business; it simply typed those places paradigm all-purpose forums."). When a corporation's affiliations with a state are so "continuous and systematic" that they are essentially at home in the state, general jurisdiction is appropriate. Id. at 127 (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919. Because Swift is neither incorporated in Georgia nor does it maintain its principal place of business here, the Court must Case 6:19-cv-00109-JRH-CLR Document 11 Filed 05/12/20 Page 6 of 7 consider whether continuous Georgia. and Swift's systematic affiliations that it is with Georgia essentially at are so home in This inquiry ""calls for an appraisal of a corporation's activities in their entirety" because ""[a] corporation that operates in many places can scarcely be deemed at home in all of them." Id. at 139 n.20. The Amended Complaint contains Swift's affiliation with Georgia. few allegations regarding In paragraph three it alleges that Swift maintains an agent in Marietta, Georgia. Plaintiff's response also states that Swift operates a terminal network in Decatur, Georgia, an academy in Waco, Georgia, and has semi-trucks traveling throughout Georgia on a daily basis. (See Pl.'s Resp., at 5.) Even considering the statements . outside the Amended Complaint, Swift cannot be said to be ""at home" in Georgia. Swift's operations described above can be compared to those of the railway company in BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrell, 136 S. Ct. 1549, 1559 (2017). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that even though the railway company had over 2,000 miles of track and over 2,000 employees in Montana, those contacts with the state were insufficient to subject it to general jurisdiction. See id. Put succinctly, ""in-state business . . . does not suffice to permit the assertion of general jurisdiction over claims like [plaintiffs'] that are unrelated to Case 6:19-cv-00109-JRH-CLR Document 11 Filed 05/12/20 Page 7 of 7 any activity occurring in the [state]." Id. Thus, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Swift. IV. CONCLUSION Because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Swift, it need not address Swift's venue argument. dismissed Defendant Montanez. (Doc. 8) is GRANTED, prejudice. and Plaintiff voluntarily Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's case is dismissed without Further, Plaintiff's request for additional discovery on Swift's affiliations with Georgia (See Pl.'s Resp., at 6) is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE all remaining motions and deadlines, if any, and CLOSE this case. ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia this J. day of May, 2020. HALL/ CHIEF JUDGE UNITE^STATES DISTRICT COURT ;RN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
