Gonzalez-Pozo v. Empire Fire And Marine Insurance Company
2:23-cv-00589-GMN-BNW
| D. Nev. | Nov 22, 2023Background:
- Plaintiffs (Nevada residents) rented a car from Enterprise in Florida and were rear-ended by an uninsured, at-fault driver.
- The Enterprise rental agreement included supplemental liability/uninsured–underinsured motorist coverage issued by Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Co.
- Plaintiffs sued Empire in the District of Nevada for breach of contract, common-law bad faith, and statutory bad faith, alleging Empire refused to pay UM/UIM benefits.
- Empire moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (and alternatively improper venue); plaintiffs sought to compel arbitration separately.
- Plaintiffs argued Nevada has specific jurisdiction over Empire by imputing Enterprise’s Nevada contacts to Empire via a joint-venture theory; plaintiffs did not allege Empire itself targeted Nevada or controlled Enterprise’s marketing.
- The Court declined to impute Enterprise’s contacts, found plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing of specific jurisdiction, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and denied the arbitration motion as moot.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nevada has specific personal jurisdiction over Empire | Empire is a joint venturer with Enterprise, so Enterprise’s Nevada contacts (marketing, plaintiffs’ rental) impute jurisdiction to Empire | Empire lacks sufficient contacts with Nevada; plaintiffs’ residency/medical treatment are insufficient links | No personal jurisdiction; dismissal without prejudice |
| Whether Enterprise’s forum contacts can be imputed to Empire via joint venture | Joint venture relationship makes Enterprise’s forum activities attributable to Empire | No allegation Empire controlled or influenced Enterprise’s Nevada activities; joint venture imputation unsupported | Court declines to impute contacts; plaintiffs fail first prong of specific-jurisdiction test |
| Whether case should proceed in Nevada on venue or arbitration | Plaintiffs sought to compel arbitration under the rental agreement | Empire moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue | Court did not reach venue; arbitration motion denied as moot after dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes minimum contacts standard)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (contacts must be defendant’s own; plaintiff’s connections to forum insufficient)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (framework for specific vs. general jurisdiction)
- Menken v. Emm, 503 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2007) (purposeful availment analysis for contract claims)
- Davis v. Cranfield Aerospace Sols., Ltd., 71 F.4th 1154 (9th Cir. 2023) (guidance on applying purposeful availment vs. purposeful direction)
- Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff’s prima facie burden on jurisdictional facts where decision is based on written record)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (contacts must arise from defendant’s own actions, not unilateral activity of plaintiff)
- Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) (treat complaint allegations as true for jurisdictional prima facie showing)
- LSI Indus., Inc. v. Hubbell Lighting, Inc., 232 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (distinguishes general and specific jurisdiction principles)