The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DAVID CRAIG HARE CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO.: 22-2306
AIR PLAINS SERVICES SECTION: T (1)
CORPORATION, ET AL
ORDER
Before the Court is a Rule 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss, filed by Defendant Air Plains
Services Corporation (“Air Plains”).1 Plaintiff David Craig Hare filed an untimely opposition.2
Air Plains did not file a reply to the opposition, instead filing a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
opposition.3 Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion to Strike.4
For the following reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the Motion to Strike
is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a plane crash that occurred on or about July 27, 2021.5 Plaintiff
alleges he was injured in the crash, which was caused by the defendants’ negligent sale, design,
installation, and failure to warn of a defective engine upgrade “kit” that had been installed in the
plane he was flying. and Plaintiff asserts several bases for recovery against the defendants
including products liability, breach of implied warranty, negligence, intentional and negligent
infliction of emotional distress, violation of consumer protection statutes, redhibition, and
1 R. Doc. 14.
2 R. Doc. 16.
3 R. Doc. 17.
4 R. Doc. 24.
5 R. Doc. 1.
negligent misrepresentation.6 Air Plains now seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against it under
Rule 12(b)(2) based on lack of personal jurisdiction by this Court.7
In short, Air Plains argues that this Court lacks general jurisdiction over it because it is a
Kansas corporation with its principal place of business in Kansas as well.8 Air Plains further
submits general jurisdiction is lacking because it is not licensed to do business, nor does it have
offices, property, operations, or employees in Louisiana.9 With regard to specific jurisdiction, Air
Plains asserts it does not have sufficient minimum contacts with Louisiana because it did not sell
or install the allegedly defective product at issue or have any involvement with the subject aircraft
at all.10 Moreover, Air Plains contends it has never sold the product at issue to anyone else in
Louisiana.11 Therefore, Air Plains concludes its contacts with Louisiana are de minimis at best.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
As a preliminary matter, the Court will consider the opposition filed by Plaintiff in
connection to the instant motion to dismiss. While the filing was indeed untimely, Air Plains has
had ample opportunity to seek leave of the Court to reply to the opposition’s substance, thereby
curing any prejudicial effect of the late filing.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) allows a defendant to present a defense of lack of
personal jurisdiction. When nonresidents move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the
plaintiff seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court bears the burden of establishing it.12 At
this juncture, all uncontroverted allegations in the complaint are taken as true with all conflicts
6 Id.
7 R. Doc. 14.
8 R. Doc. 14-1, p. 5.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 See Luv N’ Care v. Insta-Mix, Inc., 483 F.3d 465, 469 (5th Cir. 2006).
resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.13 The Court is not restricted to pleadings, but may consider
appropriate discovery such as affidavits, interrogatories, and depositions.14
Courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants only if two
requirements are met: (1) the forum state’s long-arm statute confers personal jurisdiction; and (2)
the exercise of jurisdiction does not exceed the bounds of due process.15 Because the limits of
Louisiana’s long-arm statute mirrors the bounds of due process, the only question to be answered
is whether this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction would offend due process.16 An exercise of personal
jurisdiction over a nonresident hinges on whether a defendant has such “minimum contacts” with
the forum state that imposing a judgment would not “offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.”17
There are two categories of personal jurisdiction: general and specific.18 General
jurisdiction arises when a defendant has “continuous and systematic general business contacts”
with the forum state.19 General jurisdiction of an individual is not predicated on jurisdiction over
a company.20 Instead, each defendant’s contact with the forum state is assessed individually.21
Specific jurisdiction exists when a suit arises out of or relates to the defendant’s contacts with the
forum state.22 The focus of an analysis regarding specific jurisdiction over nonresident defendants
is “the relationship among the defendant, the forum and the litigation.”23 In order for the Court to
13 Id.
14 Jobe v. ATR Mktg., Inc., 87 F.3d 751, 752 (5th Cir. 1996).
15 See Seiferth v. Helicópteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266, 270 (5th Cir. 2006).
16 See La. R.S. § 13:3201(B); Luv N’ Care, 483 F.3d at 469.
17 Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 923 (2011); Luv N’ Care, 483 F.3d at 469
(citing Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)).
18 Id.
19 Choice Healthcare, Inc. v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of Colo., 615 F.3d 364, 368 (5th Cir. 2010).
20 Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185, 1197 (5th Cir. 1985).
21 Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790 (1984).
22 Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984).
23 Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283 (2014) (citing Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 775 (1984)).
exercise specific jurisdiction, the defendant’s suit-related conduct must create a substantial
connection with the forum state.24
The Fifth Circuit has set forth a test to determine if specific jurisdiction exists. First, the
Court must determine whether the defendant has minimal contacts with the forum state, i.e.
whether it purposefully directed its activities toward the forum state or purposefully availed itself
of the privileges of conducting activities there.25 Second, the plaintiff’s cause of action must arise
out of or result from the defendant’s forum-related contacts.26 Finally, if the preceding factors are
satisfied, the Court looks to whether the exercise of jurisdiction is fair and reasonable.27 In cases
involving stream of commerce, the minimum contacts prong of the specific jurisdiction analysis
is satisfied when the court “finds that the defendant delivered the product into the stream of
commerce with the expectation that it would be purchased by or used by consumers in the forum
state.”28
There is no basis for this Court to exercise general jurisdiction over Air Plains. Air Plains
is a Kansas corporation, with its principal place of business in Kansas. Plaintiff has not made a
showing that Air Plains has substantial, continuous, and systemic contacts with Louisiana such
that it could be considered “at home” in Louisiana. Air Plains has no offices or employees in
Louisiana, no property within the state, and is not licensed to do business within the state. Plaintiff
alleges Air Plains “targets” Louisiana through its online presence illustrating installation of
component parts necessary for a Supplemental Type Certificate. A review of the exhibit provided
24 Id.
25 Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Ritter, 768 F.3d 429, 431 (5th Cir. 2014).
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Ainsworth v. Moffett Eng’g, Ltd., 716 F.3d 174, 177 (5th Cir. 2013).
by Plaintiff and affidavit provided by Air Plains, however, shows the website does not sufficiently
target Louisiana to trigger the exercise of general jurisdiction over Air Plains by this Court.
The Court similarly finds that Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing to invoke the
Court’s exercise of specific jurisdiction to defeat the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2). As
discussed above, specific jurisdiction is appropriate when a defendant’s volitional act within the
jurisdiction forms the basis of the litigation.29 A review of the pleadings presented in this matter
reveals that Air Plains did not sell the product that is the basis of Plaintiff’s claims, either to a
specific Louisiana company or to any company in Louisiana at all. Air Plains did not even own
the Supplemental Type Certificate at the time the engine upgrade connected to the subject litigation
occurred. Less than 1% of Air Plains’s sales transactions are connected to Louisiana. Plaintiff’s
argument regarding the potential connection between Air Plains’s conduct and the defects alleged
in this litigation is admittedly presumptive and speculative. There has not been a sufficient showing
that Air Plains purposefully directed any activities to Louisiana and that this litigation either arose
from or is related to those specific activities, so as to defeat a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(2).
Finding no basis upon which to exercise either general or specific personal jurisdiction
over non-resident Air Plains, the Court will GRANT the motion to dismiss filed by Air Plains.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and
that Plaintiff’s claims against Air Plains are dismissed without prejudice.
29 Walen v. Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115 (2014).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike filed by Air Plains is
DISMISSED AS MOOT.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 22nc_ day of September, 2023.
Greg Gerard Guidry —|
United States District Judge