Abduljabbar Malik v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp
710 F. App'x 561
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Malik slipped and fell on a drilling platform in Montrose, Pennsylvania on Feb. 14, 2014 while employed by Patterson UTI Drilling Co.; he sued his employer (Patterson) and the site owner (Cabot Oil & Gas) for negligence and gross negligence.
- Cabot is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Texas; Patterson is a Texas LLC with principal place of business in Houston, Texas.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2); the District Court granted the motions and denied Malik’s request for jurisdictional discovery.
- Malik appealed the dismissal; the Third Circuit reviews jurisdictional dismissal de novo and denial of jurisdictional discovery for abuse of discretion.
- The core jurisdictional questions were whether New Jersey courts had general jurisdiction over Cabot or Patterson, or specific jurisdiction based on forum-related activities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court has general jurisdiction over Cabot | Cabot’s national operations and contacts with NJ render it “at home” in NJ | Cabot is Delaware-incorporated with Texas principal place of business; not at home in NJ | No general jurisdiction — Cabot not “at home” in NJ |
| Whether court has specific jurisdiction over Cabot | (Implicit) Cabot’s contacts with NJ support suit in NJ | Malik’s injury occurred in PA and did not arise from Cabot’s NJ contacts | No specific jurisdiction — claim does not arise from forum-related activities |
| Whether court has general jurisdiction over Patterson | Malik’s brief header suggested general jurisdiction | Patterson is a Texas LLC with principal place in Texas; Malik failed to press a general-jurisdiction argument | Argument waived; even if considered, no general jurisdiction |
| Whether jurisdictional discovery should have been allowed | Malik sought discovery to show requisite NJ contacts | Defendants argued Malik failed to plead specific facts to justify discovery; discovery would be a fishing expedition | Denied — Malik did not plead facts with reasonable particularity to justify jurisdictional discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- D’Jamoos ex rel. Estate of Weingeroff v. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., 566 F.3d 94 (3d Cir.) (federal district court may assert personal jurisdiction to the extent authorized by state law)
- Provident Nat’l Bank v. Cal. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 819 F.2d 434 (3d Cir.) (same jurisdictional principle)
- IMO Indus., Inc. v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254 (3d Cir.) (look to federal due process limits when state long-arm statute is coextensive)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (Sup. Ct.) (general jurisdiction requires being "at home" in the forum; usually place of incorporation or principal place of business)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (Sup. Ct.) (general jurisdiction principles)
- Chavez v. Dole Food Co., 836 F.3d 205 (3d Cir.) (discusses rarity of general jurisdiction outside incorporation/PPB)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (Sup. Ct.) (specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment and that claim arise from forum contacts)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Sup. Ct.) (fair play and substantial justice standard)
- Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir.) (standards for pleading contacts to obtain jurisdictional discovery)
- Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99 (3d Cir.) (jurisdictional discovery not automatic; plaintiff must plead facts with reasonable particularity)