505 F.Supp.3d 32
D. Mass.2020Background:
- Plaintiffs Shawn and Cynthia Driscoll (MA residents) sued Kathleen and Frank McCann (VA residents) after Mrs. McCann, while driving a car registered to Mr. McCann, collided with Mr. Driscoll’s motorcycle in Chatham, MA on Sept. 29, 2018.
- Mrs. McCann was driving to pick up Mr. McCann and friends for a wedding; Mr. McCann was not in or driving the car at the time of the accident.
- Plaintiffs asserted negligence claims against Mrs. McCann and included Mr. McCann as a defendant based on vehicle ownership and M.G.L. ch. 231 § 85A (statutory presumption of responsibility for owner).
- Mr. McCann moved to dismiss Counts II and IV for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2); the court applied the plaintiff-friendly prima facie standard to jurisdictional facts.
- The court examined (1) whether Mrs. McCann was Mr. McCann’s agent for § 3(c) of the Massachusetts long-arm statute and (2) whether exercising specific jurisdiction would satisfy Due Process; it concluded plaintiffs failed both and dismissed Mr. McCann without prejudice.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction under Mass. long-arm § 3(c) via agency | Mrs. McCann was acting as Frank McCann’s agent when driving his car in MA, so § 3(c) applies | No agency: mere ownership and spousal relationship do not show control/consent to act on behalf of owner | No jurisdiction — plaintiffs failed to allege or prove agency; § 3(c) not satisfied |
| Use of M.G.L. ch. 231 § 85A to establish agency for jurisdiction | § 85A’s prima facie presumption that owner is legally responsible supports jurisdiction by imputing agency | § 85A creates a presumption of responsibility for liability, not an automatic basis for personal jurisdiction or agency | Rejected — § 85A does not itself confer personal jurisdiction or substitute for agency proof |
| Specific personal jurisdiction under Due Process (relatedness) | Mr. McCann’s travel to MA with the car and presence at the hotel/wedding connects him to forum and the accident | Mr. McCann’s presence and ownership are not tortious acts; there is no substantial in-state conduct giving rise to the claim | Rejected — "relatedness" prong fails: Mr. McCann’s forum contacts did not legally cause the injury, so Due Process not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (personal jurisdiction requires meaningful contacts and foreseeability)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (defendant must reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the forum)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction requires affiliations so continuous and systematic as to be essentially at home)
- C.W. Downer & Co. v. Bioriginal Food & Sci. Corp., 771 F.3d 59 (both long-arm statute and Due Process must be satisfied in diversity cases)
- Kirkpatrick v. Bos. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 473 N.E.2d 173 (agency requires consent to act on another’s behalf and subject to their control)
- Fennell v. Wyzik, 422 N.E.2d 1387 (spousal relationship alone insufficient to establish agency)
- Segal v. Yates, 253 N.E.2d 841 (statutory presumption of responsibility is broader than agency and does not itself confer jurisdiction)