446 P.3d 659
Wash. Ct. App.2019Background
- Decedent Dr. Elinor Montgomery traveled from SeaTac (Seattle) to Dallas in July 2015; her family requested wheelchair assistance through the airline's website when purchasing the ticket.
- ABM Aviation (ABM) is a Georgia corporation that provides airport services under contract with airlines; at SeaTac ABM performed janitorial, cabin cleaning, and baggage services in 2015 but did not provide wheelchair assistance there.
- ABM provided wheelchair assistance to Montgomery after arrival at Dallas-Fort Worth airport; the Estate alleges negligence in that Texas service caused injuries that led to her death.
- The Estate sued in King County (Washington), alleging ABM did business in Washington and asserting Washington courts have personal jurisdiction over ABM for the wrongful-death and related claims.
- The trial court denied ABM’s CR 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; ABM sought discretionary review. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Washington lacked specific jurisdiction over ABM for these claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Washington has specific personal jurisdiction over ABM for the wrongful-death claim | ABM contracted with airlines that do business in Washington to provide wheelchair services to Washington residents flying to Texas; ABM purposefully availed itself of Washington | The claim arose from ABM’s conduct in Texas; ABM’s unrelated business in Washington does not create a case-linked connection | No. Specific jurisdiction requires a link between the forum and the claim; here the injury and negligent act occurred in Texas and are not connected to ABM’s Washington contacts |
| Whether ABM’s contracts with airlines, entered with Washington-based airlines or residents, create contacts sufficient for jurisdiction | The third-party contractual arrangement ties ABM’s acts to Washington because requests originated from Washington | Contacts with Washington residents or airlines do not substitute for defendant’s own contacts with the forum state regarding the wrongful act | No. Third-party or plaintiff-initiated contacts do not establish the defendant’s purposeful availment or case-linked contacts |
| Whether ABM’s unrelated continuous activity in Washington supports jurisdiction under a “sliding scale” approach | ABM’s ongoing business in Washington justifies exercising jurisdiction even if the claim arose elsewhere | Continuous unrelated activity cannot supply the required link to the specific claim | No. The court rejected any sliding-scale approach; unrelated forum activity is insufficient for specific jurisdiction |
| Remedy following lack of jurisdiction | Estate implicitly sought continuation in Washington courts | ABM sought dismissal | The court reversed the denial of dismissal and remanded with instructions to dismiss claims against ABM without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (specific and general jurisdiction principles; forums where a corporation is "at home")
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (contacts must be between defendant and forum, not defendant and forum residents)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (specific jurisdiction requires case-linked affiliation; rejects "sliding scale")
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (unilateral or fortuitous contacts of plaintiff do not establish jurisdiction)
- J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (purposeful availment inquiry; defendant’s intent to submit to forum sovereignty)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (contacts must be defendant-created; purposeful availment analysis)
- Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (exceptional circumstances where a corporation may be "at home" outside incorporation or principal place)