Henrietta Mine LLC v. A.M. King Industries Incorporated
2:21-cv-00711
E.D. Cal.Jan 7, 2021Background
- Henrietta Mine LLC (Arizona) contracted with A.M. King Industries (Nevada corp., California principal place of business) to purchase mining equipment located in British Columbia for use in Arizona; Henrietta wired $500,000 in December 2019.
- After payment, Canadian site conditions required additional safety/regulatory work and structural reinforcements costing ~ $250,000 before removal; Henrietta alleges those requirements were unforeseeable and not disclosed by King.
- Henrietta sued King in Arizona state court (May 2020) seeking declaratory relief, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and return of the purchase price; King removed to federal court and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1)-(3) and (6) and alternatively to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- Key defenses raised by King: lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the “local action” doctrine; lack of personal jurisdiction; forum non conveniens (Canada is adequate alternative forum); transfer to California under § 1404(a). Henrietta opposed.
- The court denied dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied forum non conveniens dismissal; denied § 1404(a) transfer for lack of supporting analysis; permitted King limited supplemental briefing (4 pages) on personal jurisdiction within 5 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Local-action doctrine (SMJ) | Henrietta: claim is transitory, seeking money damages for breach of contract, not a decree affecting title to land or in rem relief. | King: dispute concerns fixtures/severance of goods from land in BC, so action is local and must be litigated where the property is located. | Court: denied — action is transitory; relief seeks in personam damages, not determination of title to land, so local-action doctrine does not strip SMJ. |
| Personal jurisdiction | Henrietta: King solicited, negotiated, and sent documents to Arizona; contacts relate to the contract and support jurisdiction. | King: contests jurisdiction and sought to defer briefing pending Supreme Court decision in Ford; requested stay/limited ripeness. | Court: refused stay; allowed King 5 days to file up to 4 pages of supplemental briefing on personal jurisdiction; failure to brief will waive the defense. |
| Forum non conveniens (dismiss to Canada) | Henrietta: U.S. forum appropriate; most witnesses/evidence and parties are in U.S.; Canada not clearly more convenient. | King: Canada is adequate and more appropriate because equipment and some witnesses are in BC; will submit to Canadian jurisdiction. | Court: denied — King met adequacy but failed to show private/public factors strongly favor Canada; Arizona forum entitled to deference. |
| Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) | Henrietta: chosen home forum is appropriate; no persuasive showing favoring transfer. | King: requested transfer to California (E.D. Cal.) but provided no substantive §1404(a) analysis. | Court: denied — King failed to carry its burden to show convenience or interests of justice warrant transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts have limited jurisdiction)
- Eldee-K Rental Props., Ltd. Liab. Co. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 748 F.3d 943 (local-action doctrine limits federal SMJ; apply narrowly)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (preserving personal-jurisdiction defenses without risking judgment on merits)
- Peterson v. Highland Music, 140 F.3d 1313 (standard for waiver by conduct of jurisdictional defenses)
- Hill v. Blind Indus. & Servs., 179 F.3d 754 (waiver of Rule 12(b)(2)-(5) defenses if not timely asserted)
- Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 643 F.3d 1216 (forum non conveniens framework and heavy burden for dismissal)
- Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163 (foreign elements alone do not justify dismissal)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (adequate alternative forum and balancing test for forum non conveniens)
- Boston Telecomms. Grp., Inc. v. Wood, 588 F.3d 1201 (difficulty obtaining foreign evidence not dispositive for dismissal)