“An affirmative finding on each of the three elements of the test is required to support a finding of specific jurisdiction.”
How later courts described this case
- “An affirmative finding on each of the three elements of the test is required to support a finding of specific jurisdiction.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
3
4 SANDRA BLANDING AND SHANEEKA Case No. 4:23-cv-11894-MRG
BLANDING,
5
Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
6
v.
7
FEDX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM,
8 INC., FEDEX CORPORATION,
IYENGAR DELIVERY CORPORATION-
9 WORCESTER, AND KIRAN IYENGAR,
Defendants.
10
11
Pending before the Court is Defendant FedEx Corporation’s motion to
12
dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal
13
jurisdiction. This motion is unopposed by Plaintiffs. After careful consideration, and
14
for the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs may file an amended
15
complaint to overcome any deficits identified herein.
16
17 I. BACKGROUND
18 Plaintiffs’ complaint names FedEx Corporation (“FedEx”) along with three
19
other defendants, and alleges negligence, negligence under the theory of respondeat
20
superior, and negligence pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 85A, based on an
21
22 alleged hit-and-run motor vehicle accident that occurred on November 27, 2022, in
23
Northborough, Massachusetts. FedEx counters that the Court lacks jurisdiction over
24
25 FedEx and that these allegations must be dismissed as a matter of law. FedEx also
26 argues that the complaint is deficient in alleging facts that directly implicate FedEx
27
in the alleged violations, and thus it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
1
2 II. LEGAL STANDARD
3
“It is axiomatic that, [t]o hear a case, a court must have personal jurisdiction
4
over the parties, that is, the power to require the parties to obey its decrees.” Hannon
5
v. Beard, 524 F.3d 275, 279 (1st Cir. 2008) (cleaned up). And it is the plaintiff who
6
bears the burden of establishing that a court has personal jurisdiction over a
7
defendant. Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC v. Alpenrose Dairy, Inc., 825 F.3d 28,
8
34 (1st Cir. 2016). When considering a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.
9
12(b)(2), the Court may use several standards to assess whether a plaintiff has
10
carried their burden: the “prima facie” standard, the “preponderance of the
11
evidence” standard, or the “likelihood” standard. Foster-Miller, Inc. v. Babcock &
12
Wilcox Canada, 46 F.3d 138, 145-46 (1st Cir. 1995).
13
Here, the Court makes its determination without first holding an evidentiary
14
hearing, thus the prima facie standard is applied. United States v. Swiss Am. Bank,
15
Ltd., 274 F.3d 610, 618 (1st Cir. 2001). Under that standard, the Court takes
16
Plaintiffs’ “properly documented evidentiary proffers as true and construe[s] them in
17
the light most favorable to [Plaintiffs’] jurisdictional claim.” A Corp. v. All Am.
18
Plumbing, Inc., 812 F.3d 54, 58 (1st Cir. 2016); see Lin v. TipRanks, Ltd., 19 F. 4th
19
28, 33 (1st Cir. 2021) (explaining that the court takes the “specific facts
20
affirmatively alleged by the plaintiff as true” regardless of whether they are disputed
21
but, at the same time, does not credit “conclusory allegations” or “conclusory
22
averments” without “evidence of specific facts.”). Plaintiffs may not “rely on
23
unsupported allegations in their pleadings.” Platten v. HG Bermuda Exempted Ltd.,
24
437 F.3d 118, 134 (1st Cir. 2006). Instead, Plaintiffs must put forward “evidence of
25
specific facts” to demonstrate that jurisdiction exists. Id.
26
Additionally. the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant must be
27
authorized by statute and consistent with the due-process requirements of the United
1 States Constitution. See A Corp., 812 F.3d at 58. Consistent with those
2 requirements, a court may exercise either general or specific jurisdiction over a
3 defendant. Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC v. Alpenrose Dairy, Inc., 825 F.3d 28,
4 35 (1st Cir. 2016). “In assessing personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant,
5 a federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction is ‘the functional equivalent of a
6 state court sitting in the forum state.’” Astro-Med, Inc. v. Nihon Kohden Am., Inc.,
7 591 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2009).
8 General jurisdiction exists “when [a foreign-state corporation’s] affiliations
9 with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at
10 home in the forum State.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564
11 U.S. 915, 919 (2011). To be “at home” in a foreign state, a corporation must have
12 affiliations with that state so substantial that it is “comparable to a domestic
13 enterprise in that State.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 133 n.11 (2014).
14 The Supreme Court, however, has indicated that such jurisdiction will exist only in
15 the “exceptional case.” Id. at 139 n.19. Here, as Plaintiffs acknowledge, FedEx is a
16 Delaware corporation with a primary place of business in Tennessee. Further, there
17 is no evidence of any affiliations with Massachusetts in the complaint that are so
18 substantial that FedEx could be considered comparable to a Massachusetts
19 company. Accordingly, the Court may not exercise general jurisdiction over FedEx.
20 As to specific jurisdiction, it “exists when there is a demonstrable nexus
21 between a plaintiff’s claims and a defendant’s forum-based activities.” United States
22 v. Swiss Am. Bank, Ltd., 274 F.3d 610, 618 (1st Cir. 2001). But to satisfy due
23 process requirements that would subject a non-resident defendant to jurisdiction, a
24 plaintiff must establish three conditions. A Corp., 812 F.3d at 59. First, the claims
25 must directly arise out of, or relate to, a defendant’s forum-state activities. Second,
26 the defendant’s in-state contacts must represent a purposeful availment of the
27 privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, thereby invoking the benefits
1 before the state’s courts foreseeable. Lastly, the exercise of jurisdiction must be
2 reasonable. Id.
3 I. DISCUSSION
4
The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ barebones complaint in determining
5
whether to exercise jurisdiction over this defendant and noted the lack of specificity
6
therein. The sum total of Plaintiffs’ claims are:
7
8 all or some Defendants, potentially excluding FedEx, “owned and/or leased
the Defendant vehicle,” see ECF No. 1-1, Exhibit “A” ¶ 9;
9
all or some Defendants, potentially excluding FedEx, were “the employer of
10
the driver of the Defendant Vehicle,” Id. ¶ 12; and
11
“the driver of the Defendant vehicle was in the course of his employment for
12
[all or some Defendants, potentially excluding FedEx,] at the time of the
13 collision.” Id. ¶ 13.
14 In all their claims, Plaintiffs use boilerplate language and the conjunction “and/or”
15
when tying the various defendants to the specific allegation. Because of this, the
16
17 claims could plausibly be interpreted to entirely exclude FedEx from the allegation-
18 at-issue. Beyond the lack of specificity as to which defendant is included in which
19
allegation, Plaintiffs also plead no specific facts tying any individual defendant’s
20
21 activities to any particular claim. Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to show the relatedness
22 needed for an exercise of specific jurisdiction. Because Plaintiffs have not satisfied
23
the relatedness condition, the Court need not consider whether FedEx purposely
24
25 availed itself of the forum state or whether specific jurisdiction would be reasonable.
26
See Phillips Exeter Acad. v. Howard Phillips Fund, 196 F.3d 284, 288 (1st Cir.
27
1999) (“An affirmative finding on each of the three elements of the test is required
to support a finding of specific jurisdiction.”). Further, because the Court lacks
1
2 personal jurisdiction over FedEx, the Court need not decide whether Plaintiffs’
3
complaint fails to state a claim against FedEx.
4
III. CONCLUSION
5
6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant FedEx
7 Corporation’s motion to dismiss because the exercise of personal jurisdiction over
8 FedEx would not comport with due process.
9
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12 Dated: March 8, 2024
13
14 /s/ Margaret R. Guzman
15 MARGARET R. GUZMAN
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27