MJL Enterprises, LLC v. Laurel Gardens, LLC, No. 2:2015cv00100 - Document 26 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 16 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 10/23/15. (tbro)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
MJL Enterprises, LLC v. Laurel Gardens, LLC Doc. 26 FILED UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT DISTRICT OF COURT OCT 2 3 2015 VIRGINIA Norfolk Division CLERK, U.S. DIS1HIG1 COURT NORI MJL ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company H < VA Plaintiff, Civil v. LAUREL GARDENS, LLC, a Action No. 2:15cvl00 Delaware Limited Liability Company and LAUREL GARDENS, LLC, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company Defendants. OPINION This matter Gardens, LLC, ("Laurel Laurel PA" a or PA seeks Amended to 12(b)(1), the Pennsylvania ORDER Court on limited Motion to ECF No. 12(b)(2), service lack of 9, under Dismiss. 12(b)(5) of personal considered the briefs of the parties, LLC's Federal and process, Defendant liability dismiss MJL Enterprises, jurisdiction, insufficient before "Defendant") Complaint, Procedure matter is AND for Laurel company's ECF No. 16. ("Plaintiff") Rules lack of of Civil subject jurisdiction, respectively. and Having the motion is now ripe for decision. Dockets.Justia.com I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Plaintiff Beach, is a government contractor, Virginia. landscaping Plaintiff Am. service, was landscaping a contract prime A87558, ("NJDOT") 13, ECF No. in awarded Transportation H 1, located contract about August Compl. 2014 the 9. Defendant is a Pennsylvania. under New Good Neighbor (the located in Virginia Id. the Jersey K 3. New Jersey Department Planting Program, "Landscaping Contract"). of on or Id. H 6. Defendant traveled to Virginia and met with Plaintiff on several occasions in May and June 2014 perform landscaping services. with Defendant, subcontract Landscaping Plaintiff bid for a Contract. to Id. H 7. invited, task solicit order Id. and opportunities Based upon its meetings Defendant solicitation 1)11 8, to 9. submitted, related Plaintiff to relied a the on Defendant's subcontract bid to price and submit a bid proposal to NJDOT. Id. task for order K1I 12, 13. H 10. Plaintiff was successful and acquired the $13,734.48 on 1 fact about October 10, 2014. Id. Plaintiff then transmitted the task order documents and a subcontract agreement the or that the documents to Defendant. indicated that Id. H 15. the task Despite order was The facts recited herein are drawn from the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 9, and such facts are assumed true for the purpose of deciding the motion currently before the Court. time sensitive, Defendant did not respond. Id. UK 16, 17. Due to Defendant's failure to complete the subcontract agreement and provide the cancelled notified services the task order. Defendant invoice from described of Id. the Defendant in the bid H 18. Even cancellation, for $160,000 Gardens, March filed a Delaware 9, 2015. its initial No. 1. an "services rendered on for June 24, 2015.2 requests that owe task order; on ECF No. the Court: Defendant or Defendant's $160,000, (2) complaint 9. (1) or of Ford, determine that amount, contract. Returned, 2, Pennsylvania, ECF No. 11. on its Amended on Amended pursuant The Complaint Plaintiff does not award compensatory damages breach Laurel ("Laurel DE") filed Plaintiff's any against Laurel PA and Laurel DE, on Complaint were served on Laura Mohr, Chadds Id. Ml 19/ 21. Plaintiff Complaint against both defendants, Plaintiff received limited liability company ECF though NJDOT Plaintiff the award of the NJ Good Neighbor Project." Plaintiff proposal, of Summons to the NJDOT $13,000 based and Amended at Laurel PA's location in June 29, Defendant Laurel 2015. See Summons PA filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter 2 Plaintiff understood Laurel PA. See Am. Compl. HU 2,3. DE to be the same business as Laurel However, after learning that Laurel DE and Laurel PA were unrelated, Plaintiff sought leave to file Amended Complaint and added Laurel PA as a Defendant. See id. its jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, process on August 3, 2015. II. ECF No. STANDARD and insufficient service of 16. OF REVIEW A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction—Rule 12 (b) (1) A party may move to dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). "'The burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction on a motion to dismiss is on the plaintiff, jurisdiction.'" 348 (4th Cir. (4th Cir. U.S. 2009) 1982)). the party asserting ex rel. Vuyyuru v. Jadhav, 555 F.3d 337, (quoting Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, A plaintiff that must prove subject matter jurisdiction exists by a preponderance of the evidence. 347-48. 1219 Id. at "When a defendant asserts that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support subject matter jurisdiction, the trial court must apply a standard patterned on Rule 12(b)(6) and assume the United States, dismiss facts prevail 585 F.3d 187, should are not truthfulness be in granted dispute as a matter of F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. of 183 law." facts (4th Cir. when and 1999) the the "the alleged." 2009) . material moving party Evans v. B.F. Kerns v. The motion to jurisdictional is entitled to Perkins Co., (internal citation omitted). 166 B. A party Personal Jurisdiction—Rule 12(b)(2) may also move personal jurisdiction. "bears the existence burden of of Flagship Resort (internal question Fed. of the Dev. citation as to evidentiary 12(b)(2). to Corp., P. the omitted). district or over F.3d 290, there a district may rule is on a for lack judge defendant Fin. disputed court may motion the by Corp. (4th Cir. the of A plaintiff court the 294 If jurisdiction, action New Wellington 416 a v. 2005) factual hold an papers, and the relevant allegations in the See id. ; Combs v. 1989) . Civ. jurisdiction supporting legal memoranda, Cir. an evidence." hearing, complaint. dismiss R. proving [personal] preponderance to Bakker, 886 F.2d 673, 676 (4th A plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of a sufficient jurisdictional basis to survive a motion to dismiss. See New Wellington whether a Fin. plaintiff jurisdiction, Corp., has the court 416 made F.3d at a 294. To prima facie showing "'must construe evaluate of all relevant pleading allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, assume credibility, and existence jurisdiction.'" 676) . of draw the most Id. favorable inferences (quoting Combs, 886 for the F.2d at C. A Rule Service of Process—12(b)(5) 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process permits a defendant to "challenge departures from the proper procedure for Charles A. Wright, Civ. § 1353 (3d serving 2014) . to give claim of 2003). notice the commencement to liberally plaintiff See Elkins v. the defendant 1233, the action [] Rabinowitz, Broome, to n.2 the the 5B & Proc. burden of Federal Rule 213 F.R.D. 273, answerable actual to notice defend service under Rule Cir. 668-69 III. is duty effectuate (4th 318 F.2d 666, he 'where and served,' construed *3 bears Prac. conformed to that 275 service the of the has [4(e)] and to been 'should uphold the United States v. Ragin, jurisdiction of the court. . . .'" F.3d complaint." et al. , Fed. process plaintiff, ' and of and "' [T]he real purpose of service of process is received by the one be A service of of Civil Procedure 4. (M.D.N.C. summons Arthur R. Miller, ed. establishing that the 113 1997) (quoting (4th Cir. Karlsson v. 1963)). DISCUSSION A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Defendant in controversy argues that requirement Plaintiff for failed to meet diversity Plaintiff's request for declaratory relief, the amount jurisdiction because with respect to the $160,000 invoice, is insufficient3 and sought in the Amended amount in controversy Complaint does requirement. the not remaining meet Plaintiff the $13,000 statutory argues that it adequately pled a request for declaratory relief, and the Court may judgment consider an amount sought by declaratory when determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction.4 Subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate when a "matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of 3 In addition to the Plaintiff failed to argument noted below, adequately plead a Defendant argues that request for declaratory judgment. Defendant's argument is unavailing. A complaint need only include: "(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief." required to use Stevenson v. 2014) Fed. R. Civ. P. any precise 8(a). or Further, magical City of Seat Pleasant, (citing United States v. Davis, 2001) ("[Plaintiff] need not have words Md. , 743 a Plaintiff in the "not their pleading." F.3d 411, magic 418 (4th Cir. 45 n.40 261 F.3d 1, used is (1st Cir. word 'declaratory judgment' in its pleading to put defendants on notice that its claims could be resolved with a grant of declaratory relief.")). Therefore, Plaintiff's request that the court "determine that MJL does not owe Laurel Gardens $160,000, or another amount pursuant to NJDOT's task order 15-N-01MJL," Am. Compl. at 5, is a sufficient demand for declaratory relief. 4 Defendant also argues that consideration of the $160,000 invoice is inappropriate because the invoice before Jersey. the United States See Laurel Gardens, District is also at issue in litigation Court for LLC v. MJL Enters., the LLC, District No. of New I:15cv05549. Defendant's argument is incorrect, because the presence of duplicative litigation in another federal court does not undermine the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction in this Court. Further, Plaintiff's initial Complaint in this matter sought relief with respect to the $160,000 invoice when it was filed in March, 2015, several months before the New Jersey litigation was filed in state court on May 18, 2015. See Laurel Gardens, LLC, No. I:15cv05549, ECF No. 1, Ex. A. Therefore, Defendant's argument is insufficient to demonstrate that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. interest and costs, States." 28 U.S.C. and is between[] § 1332(a). or injunctive relief, citizens Advert. "the amount in controversy is measured by Comm'n., citation omitted); 568, the 569 amount in result produce"). In Court $13,000. it does value to of owe Defendant's Ins. in a that party Co. MJL Defendant litigation which (1977) v. State (internal Lally, 327 does proceeding [a] Plaintiff compensatory to 347 diversity case, at 5. motion Hunt v. Wash. F.2d (noting that the test for determining either "award the Emps. the present Am. Compl. not 333, 1964) "determine $160,000," or U.S. controversy pecuniary the 432 Gov't see (4th Cir. different In an action seeking declaratory the value of the object of the litigation." Apple of not judgment has owe damages" is "the would requested that Laurel in the Gardens amount of Plaintiff seeks a declaration that $160,000 clearly dismiss or any exceeds for other amount. $75,000. lack of The Therefore, subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED. B. Defendant sufficient argues facts to Personal that may exercise personal Plaintiff establish jurisdiction over Defendant. Jurisdiction that this Plaintiff jurisdiction has over failed Court argues to has that Defendant plead personal the Court because it sufficiently alleged that Defendant had minimum contacts with the Commonwealth of Virginia. Federal district "only to the courts may exercise personal degree authorized by jurisdiction Congress under its constitutional power to 'ordain and establish' the lower federal courts." ESAB Grp., 126 F.3d 617, (4th Cir. 1997). that Inc. v. Centricut, Inc., Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(l) conduct a two-part analysis to Hollywood Brands, First, the jurisdiction statute. Second, a Inc. district is 696 court authorized Mitrano v. Hawes, F.2d must by 377 A district court determine personal jurisdiction over a defendant. v. states a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant in the manner provided by state law. must 622 it has See Peanut Corp. of Am. 311, 313 consider the whether Cir. 1982) . whether 406 personal state's forum F.3d 402, (4th long-arm (4th Cir. 2004) . if the exercise of personal jurisdiction is authorized, defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state to meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Geometric Ltd., 561 F.3d 273, The Virginia exercise business of in Id. ; see also Consulting Eng'rs (4th Cir. jurisdiction, Commonwealth. See 9 including Va. v. 2009). long-arm statute provides multiple personal the 276-77 Corp. Code bases for transacting § 8.01-328.1. Multiple federal long-arm statute permitted by Advocate, state extends the 315 Virginia's and Due 256, to clause, statutory the inquiry." may defendant suit the exercise if with the not substantial Unemployment to under with New the Haven "Because extend the extent personal due process constitutional 561 F.3d at 276-77. Fourteenth specific the Amendment offend due process See activities at jurisdiction has Int'l & Placement, notions Shoe 326 Co. U.S. that a defendant the sufficient over residents of the of v. 310, fair play Wash. 316 a "minimum "such that the maintenance of traditional justice." Comp. personal defendant forum state plaintiff must allege his v. 2002). intended merges the the Supreme Court has recognized that a district only does Cir. "Virginia's to Young permissible inquiry considering requirements, contacts" extent (4th is that jurisdiction Consulting Eng'rs Corp., When court the found Clause." 261 statute jurisdiction have personal Process F.3d long-arm courts the and Office of (1945) . A "purposefully directed forum" and that the plaintiff's cause of action "arise[s] out of" those activities. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985). The Fourth Circuit has synthesized the due process requirements for asserting specific personal jurisdiction into a three part test. The Court must consider "(1) the 10 extent to which the defendant purposefully activities arise out whether availed in of the State; those the itself of (2) of 277-78 (4th Cir. Consultants, Inc., Plaintiff facie Defendant personal activities conducting at the State; (3) would jurisdiction 712 Inc. (4th Cir. sufficient be 561 F.3d v. Dig. to make a jurisdiction over Defendant. the of Commonwealth. Serv. 2002)). facts itself claims and Consulting Eng'rs Corp., availed in of plaintiff['s] (quoting ALS Scan, alleged purposefully conducting directed 293 F.3d 707, has showing of 2009) the personal constitutionally reasonable." at privilege whether activities exercise the the prima First, privilege Plaintiff of alleged that Defendant's representatives traveled to Virginia in May and June 2014 to solicit business from related to the Landscaping Contract. also alleged that "Defendant $160,000 id. , Ex. of D, invoice and Virginia subcontract office Virginia Beach, Defendant's Plaintiff U 5. transacts Further, Plaintiff business in Defendant sent in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and it can be reasonably inferred that the exchange documents Defendant's to Id. specifically Am. Compl. t 7. regularly this District and Division." the Plaintiff, Pennsylvania Virginia. visits Beach, in to and negotiations and took place Plaintiff's between office in Second, Plaintiff's claim arises from and the communications fruit 11 of those with Plaintiff interactions: in the subcontract bid and the Landscaping Contract. Defendant was issued for "services Good Neighbor Project." Am. rendered Compl., Ex. The invoice from on D. to the The Fourth Circuit has forum negotiations for the Inst. F.3d are purpose continued sufficient of 2009); 1503 at (4th 28 0 to personal Of Chartered fin. (4th Cir. 1499, state, Cir. (noting demonstrate Grad, 1985) ; cf. that NJ exercise constitutionally communication, jurisdiction. & the found that multiple visits P.C. "minimum contract contacts" CFA Inst, 551 F.3d 285, v. Consulting Defendant and See Analysts of India, Hirschkop of Finally, of personal jurisdiction in this case would be reasonable. award did Robinson, Eng'rs not v. 294-97 757 F.2d Corp., have 561 offices, employees, or property in Virginia, and it did not have on-going business activity Virginia). or in-person contact with Plaintiff in Therefore, Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is DENIED. C. Defendant because argues Plaintiff Laura Mohr, with Insufficient served service a copy of of process the a bookkeeper for Defendant, Defendant Plaintiff that Service of Process states shortly that after Ms. was recipient of the service of process, 12 Amended insufficient Complaint on who left her employment receiving Mohr is service arguably an of process. appropriate and even if she was not, Defendant suffered no prejudice because it received actual notice of Plaintiff's claim and the Court granted it additional time to file responsive pleadings. Unless be federal served in a law provides judicial otherwise, district of an association may the United States by following state law for serving a summons in an action where the district Civ. P. court is located 4(e)(1). Procedure 424, or where Pursuant service of process is made. Pennsylvania to service Rule on a manager, clerk, any regular authorized process. R. Civil similar service to: partner or trustee of the entity; or (1) (2) an the or other person for the time being in charge of place by of corporation or entity shall be made by handing a copy of executive officer, Fed. the of business entity or in activity; writing to or (3) receive an agent service of The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has found that "the purpose of the rule is to satisfy the due process requirement that a defendant be given adequate notice commenced." 93 (1997) . Cintas Corp. While the v. that litigation has Lee's Cleaning Servs., Supreme Court has 54 9 Pa. noted that 84, rules concerning service of process must be "strictly followed," id. at 91, it connection demonstrate has focused between that the on whether person there served and is the a "sufficient defendant to service was reasonably calculated to give the 13 defendant notice Just Enters., 345, 352 courts Inc. (M.D. have manager, of the v. 2008) upheld or against it." O'Malley & Langan, Pa. clerk, action (listing service other on Id. P.C., cases in of see Supp. 2d Pennsylvania who charge 96.; 560 F. where individuals person at were a not a corporation, unincorporated entity, or partnership). Service on Pennsylvania's Ms. Mohr Rules of was Civil not in strict Procedure. observance However, of Plaintiff's service on Defendant was calculated to give adequate notice that litigation had of suit. commenced, The Defendant's Summons place Returned Summons, delivered to of attempted 1. Mohr, of a with in Complaint Chadds of Defendant's H 3, Defendant process Id. at counsel ECF No. before were Ford, bookkeeper employed business. Brown Decl. employment Amended Service Ms. to contact process. and business place Defendant's and Defendant received actual notice she Ms. regarding was personally by Defendant, Ms. on Pennsylvania. was 2. 15. served Mohr at then service of Mohr left her able to contact counsel, but she informed Defendant about the service of process because an regarding received officer the the Defendant's of Laurel Amended Complaint service of counsel was PA a followed few process. provided 14 with weeks Id. a up with after counsel Ms. UH 4-5. courtesy Mohr Further, copy of the initial Complaint, March 2015, and Complaint. Nos. 7-3, counsel Mot. 7-4. Defendant's by U.S. for mail acknowledged Leave Therefore, motion to and email, to File dismiss receipt Am. service of Compl., of for when it was process filed in the Ex. was initial C, D, ECF sufficient. insufficient service of process is DENIED. IV. For Motion the to reasons Dismiss subject matter CONCLUSION stated above, Plaintiff's jurisdiction, is Court Amended lack of insufficient service of process. It the Complaint personal ECF No. DENIES Defendant's for lack jurisdiction, of and 16. SO ORDERED. /s/ Mark S. Davis United States District Judge Norfolk, Virginia October 3.S , 2015 15
]]>
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.
