United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
W. Mead THE MEAD LAW FIRM PC Attorney for Plaintiff
Helton SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT PC
Duffy Patrick Morales-Doyle THOMPSON COBURN LLP Attorneys for
OPINION & ORDER
A. HERANDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
contract action, Plaintiff Redi-Co, LLC contends that
Defendant Prince Castle, LLC breached the parties' supply
contract. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1), (2), and (6), Defendant moves to dismiss for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of personal
jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. I grant the motion because the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
is an Oregon company with its principal place of business in
West Linn, Oregon. Am. Compl., ¶ 1, ECF
Defendant is a Delaware company with its principal place of
business in Carol Stream, Illinois. Id., ¶ 2.
On August 28, 2013, the parties entered into a written supply
agreement for Plaintiff to sell grill scrapers and other
related products to Defendant. Am. Compl., Ex. 1. Slightly
less than two years later, on or about August 18, 2015,
Defendant notified Plaintiff that it would no longer purchase
the products it had been ordering. Am. Compl., ¶ 12.
Several days later, Plaintiff sent Defendant a default notice
stating its intent to pursue remedies. Am. Compl., Ex. 2.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), a defendant may
move for dismissal on the grounds that the court lacks
personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff has the burden of showing
personal jurisdiction. Boschetto v. Hansing, 539
F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008). When the district court
decides a motion without an evidentiary hearing, “the
plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of the
jurisdictional facts” based on the plaintiff's
pleadings and affidavits. Id. “Uncontroverted
allegations in the plaintiff's complaint must be taken as
true, ” and “[c]onflicts between the parties over
statements contained in affidavits must be resolved in the
plaintiff's favor.” Id.
diversity cases such as this, the court applies the law of
the state in which it sits to determine whether it has
personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant.
Hunt v. Erie Ins. Grp., 728 F.2d 1244, 1246 (9th
Cir. 1984). Generally, personal jurisdiction is proper if it
is permitted by the forum state's long-arm statute and if
the exercise of that jurisdiction does not violate federal
due process. Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d
1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006). Because Oregon's long-arm
statute confers jurisdiction to the extent permitted by due
process, the court proceeds directly to the federal due
process analysis. Gray & Co. v. Firstenberg Mach.
Co., 913 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 1990); see Harris
Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Bell & Clements
Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2003) (when a state
long-arm statute reaches as far as the Due Process Clause,
the court need only analyze whether the exercise of
jurisdiction complies with due process). To comport with due
process, the nonresident defendant must have “certain
minimum contacts” with the forum state so that the
exercise of jurisdiction “does not offend traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 126 (2014).
forum state may exercise either general or specific
jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.
Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1016. If the contacts are
insufficient for a court to invoke general jurisdiction, the
court then applies the relevant test to determine whether
specific jurisdiction exists. In re Tuli, 172 F.3d
707, 713 n.5 (9th Cir. 1999).
concedes that Defendant's contacts in Oregon are not so
continuous and systematic as to warrant general jurisdiction.
Pl.'s Resp., 12, ECF 49. Thus, I discuss only whether
this Court has specific jurisdiction over Defendant.
Ninth Circuit uses a three-prong test to determine whether a
party has sufficient minimum contacts for specific
jurisdiction. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor
Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004). First, the
defendant must “purposefully direct his activities or
consummate some transaction with the forum or resident
thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails
himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the
forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its
laws.” Id. Second, “the claim must be
one which arises out of or relates to the defendant's
forum-related activities.” Id. Third, the
exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable, meaning it
comports with traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice. Id. Plaintiff bears the burden
on the first two prongs of the test. Boschetto, 539
F.3d at 1016. If the plaintiff establishes both prongs one
and two, ...