810 F.3d 1234
10th Cir.2016Background
- American Fidelity (an insurance company) purchased mortgage-backed Certificates held in trusts administered by The Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM), the trustee.
- American Fidelity sued BNYM in federal court in Oklahoma for breach of contract and fiduciary duties; diversity jurisdiction invoked.
- BNYM filed two pre-answer motions to dismiss and an answer without raising lack-of-personal-jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(2)).
- After the Supreme Court decided Daimler (2014), BNYM filed a third motion to dismiss asserting for the first time that the court lacked general personal jurisdiction under Daimler.
- The parties stipulated to a set of BNYM contacts with Oklahoma; the district court denied the third motion, ruling BNYM waived its general-jurisdiction defense under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h).
- BNYM appealed interlocutorily under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court, holding the general-jurisdiction defense was available earlier and thus waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BNYM waived its lack-of-general-jurisdiction defense under Rule 12(h) | American Fidelity: BNYM failed to timely assert the defense and thus waived it | BNYM: Daimler created a new, narrower general-jurisdiction rule that was not available earlier, so the defense was not waived | Held: Waiver — Daimler reaffirmed Goodyear’s standard; the defense was available earlier and was waived |
| Whether Daimler changed the general-jurisdiction standard such that the defense was newly available post-Daimler | Implicit: court may exercise jurisdiction because defendant waived later challenge | BNYM: Daimler narrowed general jurisdiction to (essentially) place of incorporation or principal place of business, creating a new defense | Held: Daimler did not create a new defense; it applied/reaffirmed Goodyear’s “at home” test, so the standard was not newly available |
| Whether Tenth Circuit pre-Daimler precedent prevented BNYM from asserting the defense earlier | American Fidelity: pre-Daimler Tenth Circuit caselaw already required the same Goodyear “at home” analysis | BNYM: Tenth Circuit decisions (Grynberg, Monge) suggested a different/lesser standard, so Daimler changed availability | Held: Tenth Circuit cases applied Goodyear and denied general jurisdiction; they are consistent with Daimler, so BNYM could have raised the defense earlier |
| Whether the court must address specific jurisdiction after finding waiver of general jurisdiction | American Fidelity: waiver permits exercise of personal jurisdiction; no need to reach specific jurisdiction | BNYM: also argued lack of specific jurisdiction in its third motion | Held: Court did not reach specific-jurisdiction issue because general-jurisdiction defense was waived; case proceeds on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (general jurisdiction proper only where corporate affiliations render defendant "essentially at home" in the forum)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (reaffirming Goodyear’s "at home" test and limiting expansive assertions of general jurisdiction)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts due process framework for personal jurisdiction)
- Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952) (general jurisdiction based on a corporation’s temporary yet pervasive activities in the forum)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (contacts insufficient for general jurisdiction despite several forum-related activities)
- Monge v. RG-Petro Machinery (Grp.) Co., 701 F.3d 598 (10th Cir. 2012) (Tenth Circuit denied general jurisdiction where contacts were not sufficient to render defendant at home)
- Grynberg v. Ivanhoe Energy, Inc., [citation="490 F. App'x 86"] (10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (Tenth Circuit applied Goodyear and found general jurisdiction lacking)