# Morales

> District Court, M.D. Florida · March 4, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11365118

## Case

- **Full name:** Melvin Morales v. BAH Logistics LLC et al.
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** March 4, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11365118

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

MELVIN MORALES,

Plaintiff,

v.
CIV. NO. 25-1106 (FAB-MDM)

BAH LOGISTICS LLC ET AL.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOM MENDATION

Before the Court is Defendant BAH Logistics LLC’s (“BAH”) Motion to dismiss for

lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. (Docket No. 15). Plaintiff Melvin

Morales (“Plaintiff” or “Morales”) filed an Opposition (Docket No. 18), and BAH filed a
Reply. (Docket No. 24). The matter was referred to the undersigned by the presiding judge
for a Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 20). For the reasons set forth below, the
undersigned finds that it lacks personal subject matter jurisdiction and therefore
RECOMMENDS that BAH’s Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.
I. Relevant Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff, a resident of Puerto Rico, brings this diversity action seeking damages
arising from a contract for the interstate shipment of a concrete pump truck. (Docket
No. 1). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he engaged Defendant BAH, a freight broker
headquartered in California, to coordinate the transportation of the equipment from Salt
Lake City, Utah, to Jacksonville, Florida. (Id. at ¶ 8).
Plaintiff contends that BAH was negligent in its professional duties by selecting and
vetting Defendant Infinite Trucking Company LLC (“Infinite Trucking”) as the motor
carrier responsible for the transit. During the journey from Utah to Florida, the pump
truck was involved in a motor vehicle accident on the mainland, resulting in significant
physical damage to the equipment. Plaintiff asserts that BAH’s failure to properly vet
Infinite Trucking—which he alleges was an inactive or unqualified carrier—proximately
caused him to suffer economic and emotional damages in Puerto Rico. Based on these
allegations, Plaintiff filed the present action in this District, asserting claims under Puerto
Rico’s general tort statute, Article 1536 of the Civil Code (formerly Article 1802).1
BAH moves to dismiss the Complaint, attesting that it is a California limited
liability company with its principal place of business in California. BAH further asserts
that it is not authorized to conduct business in Puerto Rico, maintains no agents or offices
here, and did not solicit Plaintiff’s business within this forum. Accordingly, BAH argues
that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)
because it lacks the requisite “minimum contacts” with Puerto Rico. In the alternative,
BAH moves for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiff’s state-law tort claims
are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”),
49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1).
The Court begins its analysis by addressing the threshold question of whether it
may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over BAH.
II. Legal Standard: Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction
On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(2), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the Court may
properly exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. A Corp. v. All Am. Plumbing, Inc., 812
F.3d 54, 58 (1st Cir. 2016). When a district court considers such a motion without holding
an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that personal
jurisdiction exists. Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC v. Alpenrose Dairy, Inc., 825 F.3d 28,
34 (1st Cir. 2016).
Under this standard, the Court must accept “properly documented” evidentiary
proffers as true and “construe those proffers in the light most congenial to the plaintiff’s
jurisdictional claim.” A Corp., 812 F.3d at 58. While the Court gives “credence to the
plaintiff’s version of genuinely contested facts,” it does not credit “conclusory allegations”
or “draw unsupported factual inferences.” Baskin-Robbins, 825 F.3d at 34. To defeat a

1 The Court notes that following the 2020 revision of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, the general tort
provision previously found at Article 1802 is now codified at Article 1536. See 31 P.R. Laws Ann. § 10801
(2020). The text of Article 1536 closely mirrors the fault-based liability of 1802, stating: “A person who by an
act or omission causes damage to another through fault or negligence is obliged to repair it.”
12(b)(2) motion, the plaintiff must proffer evidence that, if credited, “is enough to support
findings of all facts essential to personal jurisdiction.” A Corp., 812 F.3d at 58. It is
insufficient for a plaintiff to rely on “unsupported allegations in [the] pleadings”; rather,
the plaintiff must “adduce evidence of specific facts” to demonstrate that jurisdiction exists.
Foster-Miller, Inc. v. Babcock & Wilcox Can., 46 F.3d 138, 145 (1st Cir. 1995).
Simultaneously, the Court must consider any undisputed facts proffered by the defendant
that bear on the jurisdictional inquiry. Id.
In a diversity case, a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a
defendant only if doing so is authorized by the forum state’s long-arm statute and is
consistent with the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
C.W. Downer & Co. v. Bioriginal Food & Sci. Corp., 771 F.3d 59, 65 (1st Cir. 2014).
Puerto Rico’s long-arm statute, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 32, App. III, R. 4.7, extends jurisdiction
to the full extent permitted by the Constitution. See Pritzker v. Yari, 42 F.3d 53, 60 (1st Cir.
1994). Accordingly, the Court’s inquiry collapses into a single question: whether exercising
jurisdiction over the defendant comports with constitutional due process. Id.
Due process permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction only where a defendant
has certain “minimum contacts” with the forum such that maintaining the suit does not
offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v.
Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
III. Discussion
Defendant BAH moves for dismissal on two primary grounds. First, BAH seeks
dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2),
asserting an absence of any meaningful contacts with, or connection to, this forum.
Specifically, BAH contends that it is a California corporation with its principal place of
business in California, is not authorized to do business in Puerto Rico, and lacks the
requisite minimum contacts with this District. In the alternative, and without waiving its
jurisdictional defenses, BAH moves for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). BAH argues that
Plaintiff’s Puerto Rico tort claims are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration
Authorization Act (“FAAAA”), 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), and therefore fail to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
As this matter is before the Court through the medium of diversity jurisdiction, see
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the Court “acts as the ‘functional equivalent of a state court sitting in
the forum state.’” Kuan Chen v. U.S. Sports Acad., Inc., 956 F.3d 45, 54 (1st Cir. 2020)
(quoting Baskin-Robbins, 825 F.3d at 34). The burden of proving that personal jurisdiction
may be properly exercised lies squarely with the Plaintiff. Id.
To establish jurisdiction, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the Court’s exercise of
authority satisfies both the Puerto Rico long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. Because “the reach of Puerto Rico’s long-arm statute is
coextensive with the reach of the Due Process Clause,” Carreras v. PMG Collins, LLC, 660
F.3d 549, 552 (1st Cir. 2011), the Court may collapse the inquiry and determine whether
exercising jurisdiction “falls within constitutional bounds.” S&S Imports, Inc. v. Cooper
Tire & Rubber Co., No. 20-1064 (JAG), 2021 WL 5570327, at *3 (D.P.R. July 12, 2021). [1]
Under federal law, personal jurisdiction may be established through two distinct
avenues: general or specific jurisdiction. See Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 126-27
(2014). General jurisdiction exists when a defendant’s “systematic and continuous”
activities within a forum are so substantial as to render the defendant essentially “at
home” there. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 131 S. Ct.
2846, 2851 (2011). Specific jurisdiction, by contrast, exists where the cause of action “arises
directly out of, or relates to, the defendant’s forum-based contacts.” United Elec., Radio &
Mach. Workers of Am. v. 163 Pleasant St. Corp., 960 F.2d 1080, 1088–89 (1st Cir. 1992).
If a plaintiff fails to satisfy either of these jurisdictional tests, the Court lacks the
authority to adjudicate the claims against the defendant, and dismissal is warranted under
Rule 12(b)(2).
A. General Jurisdiction
General jurisdiction requires that a defendant’s contacts within the forum be “so
‘continuous and systematic’ as to render [the non-resident defendant] essentially at home
in the forum State.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919
(2011). This is a significantly more “stringent” standard than that required for specific
jurisdiction. Noonan v. Winston Co., 135 F.3d 85, 93 (1st Cir. 1998). For a corporation, the
“paradigm forums” for the exercise of general jurisdiction are its place of incorporation and
its principal place of business. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137 (2014). The
inquiry focuses on the “quality and quantity” of the defendant’s in-forum contacts; if these
contacts do not exist in sufficient abundance, the inquiry ends. Phillips Exeter Acad. v.
Howard Phillips Fund, 196 F.3d 284, 288 (1st Cir. 1999); Donatelli v. Nat’l Hockey League,
893 F.2d 459, 465 (1st Cir. 1990).
In the present case, Plaintiff does not explicitly argue that BAH is subject to general
personal jurisdiction in this District. To the extent such an argument could be inferred
from the Complaint’s broad allegation that BAH conducts business “throughout the
[United States] including Puerto Rico,” the Court finds it lacks the requisite specificity and
evidentiary support.
BAH is a California entity with its headquarters located in California. It is “at home”
in those jurisdictions, not in Puerto Rico. Plaintiff has neither alleged facts nor produced
evidence to demonstrate that BAH’s affiliations with this forum are so pervasive as to
render it “at home” here. See Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919. Indeed, a conclusory allegation of
doing business nationwide is insufficient to satisfy the “exceptional” circumstances
required to find a corporation at home in a forum other than its place of incorporation or
principal place of business. Daimler, 571 U.S. at 139 n.19.
Accordingly, in the absence of any facts supporting the exercise of general
jurisdiction, the Court finds that general jurisdiction over BAH does not lie in the District
of Puerto Rico and proceeds to the specific personal jurisdiction inquiry.
B. Specific Jurisdiction
Specific jurisdiction allows a court to hear a particular case so long as that case
“relates sufficiently to, or arises from, a significant subset of contacts between the
defendant and the forum.” Baskin-Robbins, 825 F.3d at 35 (quoting Phillips Exeter, 196
F.3d at 288). For specific jurisdiction to attach, a defendant must maintain “certain
minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” PREP Tours, Inc. v. Am. Youth
Soccer Org., 913 F.3d 11, 17 (1st Cir. 2019) (citing Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S.
310, 316 (1945)).
To establish such jurisdiction, the First Circuit employs a tripartite test, requiring
a plaintiff to demonstrate: (1) Relatedness: The claim arises directly out of, or relates to,
the defendant’s forum-state activities; (2) Purposeful Availment: The defendant’s contacts
with the forum state represent a purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting
activities in that state, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws and
rendering the defendant’s involuntary presence in the forum’s courts foreseeable; and
(3) Reasonableness: The exercise of jurisdiction is ultimately reasonable in light of the
“Gestalt factors.” See A Corp., 812 F.3d at 59; Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt,
Richardson & Poole, P.A., 290 F.3d 42, 60 (1st Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff bears the burden of proving each of these three prongs. A “failure as to any
one of them defenestrates its claim of specific jurisdiction.” Kuan Chen, 956 F.3d at 59.
Indeed, the failure to make any one of these showings “dooms any effort to establish”
specific personal jurisdiction. Scottsdale Cap. Advisors Corp. v. The Deal, LLC, 887 F.3d
17, 20 (1st Cir. 2018). Defendant BAH contends that Plaintiff has failed to meet this
burden as to any of the three prongs. The Court addresses each in turn.
a. Relatedness
To satisfy the relatedness prong, the underlying action must “directly arise out of
the specific contacts between the defendant and the forum state.” Sawtelle v. Farrell, 70
F.3d 1381, 1389 (1st Cir. 1995). The Court must determine whether the claim “directly
relates to or arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Phillips Exeter, 196
F.3d at 288. While this is a “flexible and relaxed standard,” Astro-Med, Inc. v. Nihon
Kohden Am., Inc., 591 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2009), it is not “an open door.” Vargas-Santos v.
Sam’s West, Inc., No. 20-1641 (GAG), 2021 WL 4768387, at *4 (D.P.R. Oct. 12, 2021)
(quoting Harlow v. Children’s Hosp., 432 F.3d 50, 61 (1st Cir. 2005)). A plaintiff must
establish a “material connection” between the claim and the defendant’s forum-state
contacts. Id.
Because Plaintiff’s claims sound in tort, the relatedness inquiry focuses on whether
Plaintiff has established cause in fact—meaning the injury would not have occurred “but
for” the defendant’s forum-state activity—and legal cause—meaning the defendant’s in-
state conduct “gave birth to the cause of action.” Scottsdale Cap. Advisors Corp. v. The
Deal, LLC, 887 F.3d 17, 20–21 (1st Cir. 2018). In this context, the Court must keep the
causation element at the “forefront of the due process investigation.” Ticketmaster-New
York, Inc. v. Alioto, 26 F.3d 201, 207 (1st Cir. 1994).
Crucially, the relationship between the defendant, the forum, and the litigation
must arise out of contacts that the “defendant himself created with the forum state.”
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014) (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471
U.S. 462, 475 (1985)). “The proper question is not where the plaintiff experienced a
particular injury or effect but whether the defendant’s conduct connects him to the forum
in a meaningful way.” Id. at 290. The plaintiff cannot serve as the “only link between the
non-resident defendant and the forum.” Id. at 285.
Here, Plaintiff must demonstrate a nexus between his negligence claims and BAH’s
activities in Puerto Rico. See Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017,
1025 (2021); A Corp., 812 F.3d at 59. The record shows that BAH is a California company
that has not transacted business in Puerto Rico, has not employed personnel or agents
here, and has never resided in this District.
Plaintiff argues that relatedness is satisfied because he negotiated the contract with
BAH from Puerto Rico and suffered economic harm here. However, the “nucleus” of this
dispute—the selection of the carrier in the continental United States, the transportation
of the equipment from Utah to Florida, and the subsequent accident in transit—occurred
entirely outside of Puerto Rico. The allegedly tortious conduct (negligent broker liability)
centers on BAH’s purported failure to properly vet an inactive or unqualified motor carrier.
This conduct, and the resulting physical damage to the pump truck, took place on the
mainland. So, none of the operative facts giving rise to this dispute have any geographical
ties to Puerto Rico. “There can be no requisite nexus between the contacts and the cause
of action if no contacts exist.” United States v. Swiss Am. Bank, Ltd., 274 F.3d 610, 621
(1st Cir. 2001); see also Swanson v. Coffeen, 952 F. Supp. 2d 390, 395 (D.P.R. 2013).
The sole connection to this District is Plaintiff’s residency. Plaintiff contends that
because he resides here, the damages resulting from BAH’s out-of-state omissions were
“suffered” within this forum. This is legally insufficient. The First Circuit has long held
that a plaintiff’s residence in the forum is inadequate to satisfy the relatedness prong when
the operative facts occurred elsewhere. See Carreras v. PMG Collins, LLC, 660 F.3d 549,
554 (1st Cir. 2011). Stated simply, “the mere fact that a plaintiff feels the effect of a
defendant’s out-of-state conduct within the forum is not enough.” Id. Indeed, an “indirect
effect of [an] out-of-state injury caused by [an] out-of-state conduct is insufficient to fulfill
the relatedness prong.” A Corp., Inc., 812 F.3d at 60.
Furthermore, Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), “cannot stand for the broad
proposition that a foreign act with foreseeable effects in the forum state always gives rise
to specific jurisdiction.” Swiss Am. Bank, 274 F.3d at 623. To base jurisdiction solely on in-
forum effects, a plaintiff must show the defendant “acted for the very purpose of causing
harmful effects in the forum.” Id. at 632. There is no evidence of such purposeful conduct
here.
The First Circuit has consistently rejected the exercise of personal jurisdiction
whenever the connection between the cause of action and the defendant’s forum-state
contacts is “attenuated and indirect.” Harlow, 432 F.3d at 61 (quoting Donatelli v. Nat’l
Hockey League, 893 F.2d 459, 463 (1st Cir. 1990)). Here, because the connection between
the cause of action and BAH’s forum-state contacts is “attenuated and indirect,” personal
jurisdiction must be rejected. Harlow, 432 F.3d at 61; see also González Cantón v. Mad Ruk
Ent., Inc., No. 22-1458 (CVR), 2023 WL 4546545, at *6 (D.P.R. July 13, 2023).
Ultimately, the record establishes that BAH is domiciled in California and lacks any
systematic relationship, connection, or presence within this District. Because the
connection between Plaintiff’s negligence claims and this forum is non-existent—and
BAH’s “contacts” with Puerto Rico are effectively illusory—Plaintiff has failed to satisfy
the relatedness prong. See Swiss Am. Bank, 274 F.3d at 625 (holding that a failure to show
relatedness is dispositive and ends the jurisdictional inquiry). Notwithstanding this fatal
deficiency, the Court briefly addresses the remaining factors for the sake of completeness.
b. Purposeful Availment
The purposeful availment prong requires the Court to determine whether the
defendant’s contacts with the forum represent a “purposeful decision by the defendant to
participate in the local economy.” Baskin-Robbins, 825 F.3d at 36. This requirement
ensures that jurisdiction is not predicated on merely “random, isolated, or fortuitous”
contacts with the forum state. See Sawtelle, 70 F.3d at 1391 (quoting Keeton v. Hustler
Mag., Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984)). To satisfy this burden, a plaintiff must show that the
defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within Puerto
Rico, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. See BlueTarp Fin., Inc. v.
Matrix Constr. Co., 709 F.3d 72, 82 (1st Cir. 2013). The two “focal points” of this inquiry
are voluntariness and foreseeability. C.W. Downer & Co. v. Bioriginal Food & Sci. Corp.,
773 F.3d 59, 66 (1st Cir. 2014).
Voluntariness requires that the defendant’s contacts with the forum proximately
result from its own actions, rather than the “unilateral activity of another party or a third
person.” Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475. Foreseeability requires that the defendant’s
contacts with the forum be such that it “should reasonably anticipate being hauled into
court there.” Phillips Exeter, 196 F.3d at 292 (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v.
Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980)).
Plaintiff argues that BAH purposefully availed itself of this forum by knowingly
contracting with a Puerto Rico resident for the transport of equipment ultimately destined
for the island. This argument is unavailing. The First Circuit has made clear that “the
mere existence of a contractual relationship between an out-of-state defendant and an in-
state plaintiff does not, by itself, settle the purposeful availment question.” Baskin-
Robbins, 825 F.3d at 36.
In the present case, the “voluntariness” of BAH’s contact with Puerto Rico is
virtually non-existent. While Plaintiff argues that BAH was aware it was serving a Puerto
Rico resident, the Supreme Court has clarified that “the plaintiff cannot be the only link
between the defendant and the forum.” Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014).
The record is bereft of any factual allegation that BAH solicited Plaintiff’s business in
Puerto Rico, maintains offices or agents here, or targets this market through advertising
or specialized services. Rather, it was the Plaintiff who unilaterally reached out to a
California-based broker to arrange for services to be performed exclusively on the
mainland. Contracting with an individual who happens to reside in Puerto Rico for services
performed entirely outside the forum is the “epitome” of the “random, isolated, or
fortuitous” connections that the Supreme Court has held are insufficient to support specific
jurisdiction. See Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475; Keeton, 465 U.S. at 774. Because BAH did
not purposefully direct its activities toward Puerto Rico, it could not have reasonably
anticipated being hauled into court in this District.
As established in the preceding analysis, the record is devoid of evidence that BAH
conducts any business activity in Puerto Rico. Absent such activity, there can be no
“voluntary” direction of conduct toward this forum. “This prong is only satisfied when the
defendant purposefully and voluntarily directs his activities toward the forum so that he
should expect, by virtue of the benefit he receives, to be subject to the court’s jurisdiction
based on these contacts.” United States v. Swiss Am. Bank, Ltd., 274 F.3d 610, 624 (1st
Cir. 2001). Here, BAH did nothing to invoke the benefits or protections of Puerto Rico’s
laws; it merely engaged in a commercial transaction with an individual who resided there.
The “effects” of the contract—the eventual shipment of the truck to Puerto Rico—cannot
serve as the basis for jurisdiction. As established in Walden, the defendant’s suit-related
conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State itself, not just with a
person who resides there.
Furthermore, the downstream “effects” of the contract—namely, the eventual
shipment of the truck to Puerto Rico by a third party—cannot serve as the basis for
jurisdiction. Under Walden, the defendant’s suit-related conduct must create a substantial
connection with the forum State itself, not merely with a resident of that State. 571 U.S.
at 284–85. BAH’s awareness of Plaintiff’s residency is a “thin reed” upon which to hang
jurisdiction when the entirety of the defendant’s performance of the contract—the vetting
of the carrier and the coordination of the Utah-to-Florida transit—occurred thousands of
miles away.
In sum, Plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of proffering facts sufficient to
demonstrate that this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over BAH without
offending due process. A plaintiff’s failure to satisfy any of the three prongs of the specific
jurisdiction inquiry “dooms any effort to establish such jurisdiction.” Scottsdale Cap.
Advisors Corp. v. The Deal, LLC, 887 F.3d 17, 20 (1st Cir. 2018). Although the absence of
relatedness and purposeful availment is dispositive of the jurisdictional question, the
Court concludes by briefly addressing the final “Gestalt” factor.
c. Reasonableness (The Gestalt Factors)
The final stage of the specific jurisdiction inquiry involves an assessment of the
“Gestalt factors” to determine whether the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable and
comports with “fair play and substantial justice.” Burger King, 471 U.S. at 476. These
factors include: (1) the defendant’s burden of appearing; (2) the forum state’s interest in
adjudicating the dispute; (3) the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective
relief; (4) the judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most effective resolution of the
controversy; and (5) the common interests of all nations in promoting substantive social
policies. Ticketmaster-New York, Inc. v. Alioto, 26 F.3d 201, 209 (1st Cir. 1994).
While the First Circuit has noted that the reasonableness inquiry only becomes
“pivotal” if the plaintiff has first established relatedness and purposeful availment, which
Plaintiff here has not, Sawtelle, 70 F.3d at 1394, the Gestalt factors also weigh heavily in
favor of dismissal.
First, the burden on BAH—a small California-based entity—to defend a lawsuit in
Puerto Rico regarding a mainland traffic accident is significant. While modern
transportation has eased some burdens of travel, the logistical strain of litigating far from
its principal place of business and the location of the operative facts is a primary concern.
See Ticketmaster, 26 F.3d at 210 (noting that the burden on a defendant “only becomes
meaningful” when it is “special or unusual,” such as being forced to litigate in a distant
forum). Second, Puerto Rico has a minimal interest in adjudicating this dispute. Although
the forum has a general interest in protecting its residents, that interest is “significantly
diminished” where, as here, the allegedly tortious conduct—the negligent vetting of a
carrier—and the resulting physical accident occurred entirely in the continental United
States. Third, while Plaintiff naturally prefers the convenience of his home forum, “this
interest is not a ‘stand-alone’ basis for the exercise of jurisdiction.” Vargas-Santos, 2021
WL 4768387, at 6. Finally, the judicial system’s interest in the most effective resolution of
the controversy favors a forum where the evidence and witnesses regarding the motor
vehicle accident and the brokerage contract are located. Litigating this matter in Puerto
Rico, thousands of miles from the scene of the accident and the seat of the contract
formation, would be an inefficient use of judicial resources.
In conclusion, the burden on a California logistics firm to litigate a Utah-to-Florida
transport dispute in Puerto Rico would be substantial, while the forum’s interest in
adjudicating a mainland traffic accident is minimal. In light of the foregoing, the exercise
of personal jurisdiction over BAH would be unreasonable and would not comport with the
requirements of the Due Process Clause.
C. Request for Jurisdictional Discovery
In his opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff requests the opportunity to
conduct limited jurisdictional discovery “to identify the scope of BAH’s contacts with
Puerto Rico especially as to solicitation, marketing, and prior shipments.” (Docket No. 18
at 5). The First Circuit has held that a “timely and properly supported” request for
jurisdictional discovery should be granted where the plaintiff has presented a “colorable
case” for the existence of personal jurisdiction. United States v. Swiss Am. Bank, Ltd., 274
F.3d 610, 625 (1st Cir. 2001). However, the court is not required to permit “fishing
expeditions” when the plaintiff’s claim of jurisdiction is based on mere conjecture. Id. at
626.
Here, Plaintiff has failed to meet the “colorable case” threshold. As discussed above,
the fatal flaw in Plaintiff’s jurisdictional claim is the lack of “relatedness” between BAH’s
alleged tortious conduct on the mainland and this forum. Even if discovery were to reveal
that BAH has engaged in general marketing or has coordinated other shipments involving
Puerto Rico, such contacts would not cure the absence of a nexus between this specific
cause of action and this District. Because the “nucleus of operative facts” and the entire
performance of the contract in question—specifically regarding the vetting of the carrier
and the resulting accident—are indisputably tied to the continental United States—not
even remotely to Puerto Rico—jurisdictional discovery would be futile. Accordingly, the
undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s request for limited jurisdictional discovery
be DENIED.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has failed to
establish that this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant BAH Logistics
LLC. Plaintiff has failed to satisfy either the “relatedness” or “purposeful availment”
prongs of the specific jurisdiction inquiry, and the exercise of jurisdiction would otherwise
be unreasonable under the “Gestalt factors.” Consequently, it is unnecessary for the Court
to address Defendant’s alternative arguments regarding FAAAA preemption or the failure
to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendant BAH Logistics
LLC’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 15) be GRANTED for lack of personal jurisdiction
and that the claims against BAH be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties
have fourteen (14) days to file any objections to this report and recommendation. Failure
to file timely objections shall constitute a waiver of the right to appellate review. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Scott v. Hubbell, 73 F.3d 409, 411 (1st Cir. 1995).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 4th day of March 2026.

s/Marshal D. Morgan
MARSHAL D. MORGAN
United States Magistrate Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11365118. Public record. Not legal advice.