Landsberger v. Alcoholics Anonymous World Services Inc

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

MATTHEW LINUS LYLE )

LANDSBERGER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. CIV-24-988-SLP

v. )

)

ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS )

WORLD SERVICES, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

O R D E R

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 3]. Plaintiff has not

responded, and the time to do so has passed. See LCvR7.1(g).1 For the reasons that follow,

the Motion is GRANTED.

I. Background

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed this action in the District Court of Oklahoma

County, State of Oklahoma on August 30, 2024. Pet. [Doc. No. 1-1]. Defendant removed

the action to this Court based on diversity of citizenship on September 24, 2024. See [Doc.

No. 1]. Plaintiff’s claims are factually premised on two Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)

meetings at which he contends he was “violently attacked by several other of the

1 Defendant filed a Motion to Deem Confessed [Doc. No. 4], asking the Court to dismiss this action

due to Plaintiff’s failure to respond. But the court may not grant a motion to dismiss “merely

because [Plaintiff] failed to file a response.” Issa v. Comp USA, 354 F.3d 1174, 1177-78 (10th Cir.

2003) (“[E]ven if a plaintiff does not file a response to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a

claim, the district court must still examine the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint and determine

whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.”).

members.” [Doc. No. 1-1] at 1. Plaintiff states that the attacks resulted in “several felony

charges” brought against him, which ultimately led to his incarceration. See id. at 1-2.

Plaintiff claims he was harmed in the form of bodily injury, emotional duress, a lost

job and wages, and the felony charges themselves. Id. He brings claims for intentional

infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and he seeks

punitive damages. See id. at 2-7. Plaintiff’s only allegations regarding Defendant are: (1)

that it is “a corporation who operates in New York County”; and (2) that it violated its “one

(1) own code(s) of conduct. . .” See generally id.

Defendant moves for dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Mot. [Doc. No. 3] at 1, 4-9. Defendant also seeks

dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. Id. at 10-14. The Court finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant

and therefore need not address the alternative argument for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

II. Governing Standard

When addressing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) without conducting an

evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal

jurisdiction. Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Cont’l Motors, Inc., 877 F.3d 895, 903 (10th Cir.

2017). “The plaintiff may make this prima facie showing by demonstrating, via affidavit

or other written materials, facts that if true would support jurisdiction over the defendant.”

OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada, 149 F.3d 1086, 1091 (10th Cir. 1998). To

defeat a plaintiff’s prima facie showing, “a defendant must present a compelling case

demonstrating ‘that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction

unreasonable.’” Id. (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 477 (1985)).

In making this determination, the Court resolves all factual disputes in favor of the plaintiff.

Old Republic, 877 F.3d at 903.

III. Discussion

“The law of the forum state and constitutional due process limitations govern

personal jurisdiction in federal court.” Old Republic, 877 F.3d at 903. Because

Oklahoma’s long-arm statute “extends jurisdiction to the Constitution’s full extent” the

personal jurisdiction analysis is “a single due process inquiry.” Id.; see also 12 Okla. Stat.

§ 2004(F); United States v. Botefuhr, 309 F.3d 1263, 1271 (10th Cir. 2002). This

jurisdiction may be general or specific. See Benton v. Cameco Corp., 375 F.3d 1070, 1075

(10th Cir. 2004).

A. General Jurisdiction

General jurisdiction exists over foreign corporations “when their affiliations with

the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the

forum State.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)

(quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 317 (1945)). General jurisdiction is

not related to “the events giving rise to the suit” and, therefore, “courts impose a more

stringent minimum contacts test, requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate the defendant’s

continuous and systematic general business contacts.” Old Republic, 877 F.3d at 904

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Plaintiff’s Complaint2 contains no allegations whatsoever regarding any contact

Defendant has with Oklahoma, let alone any allegations regarding continuous and

systematic business contacts. See generally [Doc. No. 1-1]. To the contrary, Plaintiff’s

only relevant allegation is that Defendant “is a corporation who operates in New York

County.” Id. ¶ 2. The Court therefore finds general jurisdiction over Defendant is absent.

B. Specific Jurisdiction

Specific jurisdiction involves a “less stringent” minimum contacts analysis that

permits the Court to exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state party if the cause of action

relates to that party’s contacts with the forum state. Old Republic, 877 F.3d at 904.

Specific jurisdiction involves a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff has shown that

the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state; and, if so (2) whether the

defendant has presented a “compelling case that the presence of some other considerations

would render jurisdiction unreasonable.” Id. at 904 (citing Burger King, 471 U.S. at 476–

77). The latter step is commonly discussed as “whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction

would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” See id. at 908.

Regarding the first step, two distinct requirements must be met to show a defendant

has minimum contacts with a forum state: (1) “the defendant must have purposefully

directed its activities at residents of the forum state”; and (2) “the plaintiff’s injuries must

arise out of [the] defendant’s forum-related activities.” Id. at 904 (internal quotation marks

and citations omitted). The purposeful direction component “ensures that a defendant will

2 The Court uses the nomenclature applicable in federal court.

not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated

contacts. . .” See Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475 (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted)). Neither requirement of the first step is met in this case.

There are no allegations showing that Defendant purposefully directed activities at

residents in the State of Oklahoma, nor are there any allegations to suggest Plaintiff’s

injuries arise out of any activity by Defendant in Oklahoma. Again, Plaintiff’s only

allegations regarding Defendant are that it is “a corporation who operates in New York

County” and that it violated its “one (1) own code(s) of conduct. . .” See Compl. [Doc. No.

1-1]. Plaintiff includes no further elaboration regarding Defendant’s “code(s) of conduct”

or how that relates to his injury; instead, it appears the injuries Plaintiff alleges were caused

by “several” unnamed individuals who are not parties to this action.3 See id.; see also

XMission, L.C. v. PureHealth Rsch., 105 F.4th 1300, 1312 (10th Cir. 2024) (“We have

interpreted the ‘arise out of’ language to require ‘some sort of causal connection between

a defendant’s contacts and the suit at issue.’” (quoting Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine

Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063, 1078 (10th Cir. 2008))). Accordingly, the first step is not met,

and the Court may not exercise specific jurisdiction over Defendant.

IV. Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 3]

is GRANTED and Defendant’s Motion to Deem Confessed [Doc. No. 4] is DENIED as

MOOT. This action DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of personal

3 Nor does Plaintiff explain how the violation of an internal code of conduct by a New York

corporation relates to an assault by those individuals in Oklahoma. See id.

jurisdiction. A separate judgment of dismissal shall be entered contemporaneously

herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 17" day of July, 2025.

□□ □ bp

SCOTT L. PALK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE