Independence Bank v. Balbo Construction Corporation, No. 1:2014cv00020 - Document 8 (D.R.I. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 5 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 7/9/14. (Jackson, Ryan)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND ___________________________________ ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) BALBO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________) INDEPENDENCE BANK, C.A. No. 14-20 S OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge. I. Introduction and Facts In this case, Independence Bank, a Rhode Island company, has brought suit against Balbo Construction Corporation ( Balbo ), a business organized and located in the U.S. Virgin Islands, for breach of contract, negligence and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The suit grows out of a contract between Independence Bank and Balbo. Pursuant Independence Bank took to an control unrelated of the bankruptcy St. Thomas ( Skyride ), property located in the Virgin Islands. 9-10, ECF improve No. the 1.) It Skyride, lawsuit followed. contracted but the with project Balbo went action, Skyride (Compl. ¶¶ to repair and poorly and this Balbo moves to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction and pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens (ECF No. 5). For the reasons that follow, Balbo s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. II. Discussion It is axiomatic that a court must jurisdiction over the parties to hear a case. v. Swiss Am. Bank, 274 F.3d 610, 617 have personal See United States (1st Cir. 2001). A district court may exercise authority over a defendant by virtue of either general or specific jurisdiction. Mass. Sch. of Law at Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar Ass n, 142 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 1998). Specific demonstrable nexus jurisdiction between a exists plaintiff s defendant s forum-based activities. exists when the litigation is not Id. forum-based contacts, engaged continuous and the at 618 acknowledges (citations that there omitted). is no Here, general specific jurisdiction is at issue. a and founded a on defendant systematic unrelated to the suit, in the forum state. F.3d is General jurisdiction but nevertheless there claims directly defendant s in when the has activity, Swiss Am. Bank, 274 Independence jurisdiction, so Bank only (See Pl. s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Objection to Def. s Mot. to Dismiss ( Pl. s Mem. ) 10, ECF No. 7-1.) Where, as here, the district court rules on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without holding an evidentiary hearing, the prima facie standard governs. 2 See United Elec. Radio & Mach. Workers of Am. v. 163 Pleasant St. Corp., 987 F.2d 39, 43 (1st Cir. 1993). Under this standard, it is plaintiff s burden to demonstrate the existence of every fact required to satisfy both the forum s long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. 1 Id. at 44. While in order to meet this standard, the plaintiff must go beyond the pleadings and make affirmative proof, the Court does not act as a factfinder; rather, it accepts properly supported proffers of evidence by plaintiff as true and makes its rulings as a matter of law. Specific Id. jurisdiction analysis involves a three-part inquiry: First, an inquiring court must ask whether the claim that undergirds the litigation directly relates to or arises out of the defendant s contacts with the forum. Second the court must ask whether those contacts constitute purposeful availment of the benefits and protections afforded by the forum s laws. Third, if the proponent s case clears the first two hurdles, the court then must analyze the overall reasonableness of an exercise of jurisdiction in light of a variety of pertinent facts that touch upon the fundamental fairness of an exercise of jurisdiction. See Phillips Exeter Acad. v. Howard Phillips Fund, Inc., 196 F.3d 284, 288 (1st Cir. 1999). 1 Since Rhode Island s long-arm statute claims jurisdiction to the maximum extent permitted by the Fourteenth Amendment, see Almeida v. Radovsky, 506 A.2d 1373, 1374 (R.I. 1986), the inquiry must focus on whether asserting personal jurisdiction over the defendant is consistent with the Due Process Clause. See Hainey v. World AM Commc ns, Inc., 263 F. Supp. 2d 338, 341 (D.R.I. 2003). 3 Here, the inquiry begins and ends with the first factor because Balbo s contact with the State of Rhode Island is, at best, de minimis. Independence Bank hangs its jurisdictional hat that on the fact Balbo entered into a contractual relationship with the knowledge that Independence Bank was a Rhode Island company and that Independence Bank s performance of the contract would occur in Rhode Island. (See Pl. s Mem. 7.) Independence Bank also notes that it initiated payments to Balbo from Rhode Island. A contract (Id.) with an out-of-state party, insufficient to confer specific jurisdiction. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 478 (1985). alone, is Burger King Corp. A contract is but an intermediate step serving to tie up prior business negotiations with future consequences which themselves are the real object of the business transaction. Swiss Am. Bank, 274 F.3d at 621 (quoting Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 479). Court considers prior negotiations and Therefore, the contemplated future consequences along with . . . the parties actual course of dealing. Both Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 479. Balbo and the Skyride are located in Islands, the only place that Balbo does business. the Virgin (See Aff. of Gerard Castor, Ex. A to Def. s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Def. s Mot. to Dismiss ¶¶ 2-4, ECF No. 5-1.) negotiated and executed in the 4 The contract at issue was Virgin Islands by a Virgin Islands attorney acting on behalf of Independence Bank. 2 ¶¶ 5-6.) What is more, the contract was for services to be performed over a short period of just 90 days. Corp., 471 resident (Id. at U.S. of at the 480 (entry forum state into a Cf. Burger King 20-year sufficient to contract confer with specific jurisdiction). Independence Bank makes much of the fact that it initiated payments to Balbo from Rhode Island. [T]he location of payments is a meaningful datum but does not command decretory significance in assessing whether an action relates to or arises out of the defendant s contacts with the forum state. Daniels Agrosciences, LLC v. Ball DPF, LLC, No. 13-268, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134732, at *34 (D.R.I. Aug. 28, 2013). Absent some indication that the act of making payment was itself a breach of contract, the mere initiation of a wire transfer by the plaintiff from the forum state is insufficient to trigger specific jurisdiction. See Phillips Exeter Acad., 196 F.3d at 291 ( [A]ny breach of fiduciary duty . . . occurred in Florida and arose when artificially low the Fund amounts. allegedly This computed means that the the payments in receipt of payment was merely an in-forum effect of an extra-forum breach 2 Though this point is not pressed by either party, the contract governing repair of the Skyride calls for the application of the law of the place where the Project is located. (See Ex. 1 to Pl. s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Objection to Def. s Mot. to Dismiss § 15.3, ECF No. 7-2.) 5 and, therefore, [is] inadequate to support a finding of relatedness. ). Because Balbo s contacts with Rhode Island are insufficient to satisfy the first prong of the inquiry, there is no need to address the remaining factors. 3 See id. at 288 ( An affirmative finding on each of the three elements of the test is required to support a finding of specific jurisdiction. ). For the same reason, there is no need to separately address the issue of forum non conveniens. Therefore, Balbo s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. William E. Smith Chief Judge Date: July 9, 2014 3 Even if Independence Bank were to prevail on this issue, it seems evident that it nevertheless could not establish the second and third elements, purposeful availment and reasonableness, respectively. The purposeful availment inquiry focuses on the defendant s purposeful and voluntary direction of activities toward the forum state such that the defendant should expect to be subject to jurisdiction there. See Phillips Exeter Acad. v. Howard Phillips Fund, Inc., 196 F.3d 284, 292 (1st Cir. 1999). The record reflects that Balbo did not direct activities of any kind toward Rhode Island, purposeful, voluntary, or otherwise. Given the deficiencies with respect to the first and second elements, Independence Bank likewise could not satisfy the reasonableness element because to exercise jurisdiction over Balbo in these circumstances would be both unreasonable and fundamentally unfair. See id. at 288. 6
]]>
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.
