937 F. Supp. 2d 1356
M.D. Fla.2013Background
- Hatton and her minor son C.H. sue Chrysler Canada, Inc. for negligence and strict products liability arising from a 2009 Florida collision where a 1999 Chrysler 300 M malfunctioned.
- The car was manufactured by Chrysler Canada; the action was removed to federal court based on diversity.
- Chrysler Canada moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and statute of limitations; plaintiffs respond; defendant replies; plaintiffs file sur-reply; court denies the motion.
- The court previously determined subject matter jurisdiction based on complete diversity.
- The court analyzes whether Florida’s long-arm statute and due process permit jurisdiction, and whether the claims are time-barred under Florida, Ohio, or Canada law with potential tolling.
- The court ultimately denies dismissal, finding specific jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statute and not time-barred on the face of the Amended Complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Florida have general jurisdiction over Chrysler Canada? | Chrysler Canada engaged in substantial Florida activity. | Chrysler Canada has no substantial Florida activities. | General jurisdiction not established |
| Does Florida's long-arm statute confer specific jurisdiction here? (f(2)) | Claims arise from Florida-related injury with the product in commerce. | No connection sufficient for specific jurisdiction. | Yes, under Fla. Stat. § 48.193(f)(2) |
| What test governs minimum contacts after J. McIntyre? (stream of commerce vs stream of commerce plus) | Stream of commerce suffices for minimum contacts. | Stream of commerce plus is required after McIntyre. | Stream of commerce remains controlling; no stream-plus requirement adopted here |
| Is there equitable tolling affecting statutes of limitations among Florida, Ohio, and Canada? | Equitable tolling applies because Chrysler United States was misidentified as the manufacturer. | No tolling; Chrysler United States was correctly identified. | No true conflict established; tolling unresolved at this stage; not time-barred on face |
| Is there a true conflict of laws on the statute of limitations that warrants dismissal for time-bar? | Equitable tolling creates a toll across jurisdictions. | No true conflict; limitations should apply from the appropriate jurisdiction. | No true conflict established; Amended Complaint not dismissed on limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) (jurisdictional and due process considerations; twofold jurisdictional inquiry)
- Sinochem Int'l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (stok of jurisdiction; authority to decide threshold questions)
- Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc. v. Food Movers Int’l, Inc., 593 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir.2010) (two-step inquiry for personal jurisdiction; Florida long-arm applicability)
- Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir.2009) (minimum contacts and due process—Calder effects and related tests)
- Licciardello v. Lovelady, 544 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir.2008) (scope of in-state activity and jurisdictional reach)
- PVC Windoors, Inc. v. Babbitbay Beach Constr., N.V., 598 F.3d 802 (11th Cir.2010) (two-step Florida long-arm analysis and minimum contacts)
- Vermeulen v. Renault, U.S.A., Inc., 985 F.2d 1534 (11th Cir.1993) (stream of commerce and minimum contacts considerations)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (foreseeability and fairness in jurisdictional exercise)
- J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011) (fragmented decision; stream of commerce analysis debated)
- Sculptchair, Inc. v. Century Arts, Ltd., 94 F.3d 623 (11th Cir.1996) (purposeful availment and general jurisdiction standards)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and fair play in jurisdiction)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of Cal., 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (stream of commerce and related tests (contextual))
- Worldr-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (foreseeability and jurisdictional reach in due process)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (effects test for intentional tort jurisdiction)