22 F.4th 852
9th Cir.2022Background
- In 2016 Plaintiffs bought a 2006 Cessna Columbia equipped with a Continental engine; in July 2017 the pilot made an emergency crash landing in Arizona; no fatalities.
- Continental manufactured the engine in 2006 and shipped it to Columbia (Oregon) where it was installed; Cessna later acquired some Columbia assets and became a Textron subsidiary.
- Plaintiffs sued (Arizona state court, July 2019) alleging negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty against 15 defendants, including Continental and Textron; case was removed to federal court.
- Continental and Textron moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and submitted affidavits rebutting Plaintiffs’ jurisdictional allegations; Plaintiffs did not submit counter-affidavits.
- The district court dismissed Continental and Textron for lack of specific personal jurisdiction and denied Plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery as speculative; Plaintiffs appealed as to those two defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arizona has specific jurisdiction over Continental | Continental markets/advertises products and lists Arizona repair shops (hence AVAILED to AZ) | Continental has no targeted marketing to Arizona, no offices/employees/property there; listed shops are unrelated third parties | No: plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing of purposeful availment or a claim-related contact; website/third-party shops insufficient |
| Whether Arizona has specific jurisdiction over Textron | Textron (as Cessna/parent) advertises/sells/services aircraft in AZ and maintains a service center, so claims relate to AZ contacts | Textron did not design, manufacture, sell, or service the subject aircraft in AZ; single service center not tied to this aircraft or to Columbia liabilities | No: even assuming some contacts, plaintiffs’ claims do not arise out of or sufficiently relate to Textron’s Arizona contacts |
| Whether district court abused its discretion by denying jurisdictional discovery | Plaintiffs sought discovery to confirm extent of sales, advertising, and service affiliations in Arizona | Defendants argued affidavits specifically rebut claims; requests were speculative and unsupported | No: denial affirmed — request was a speculative “hunch” without affidavits or a precise showing of what discovery would show |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (clarifies that jurisdiction can exist when defendant’s forum contacts relate to the specific product that caused the injury)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction requires defendant to be essentially at home in the forum)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (due-process limits require plaintiff-focused forum contacts; third-party relationships insufficient)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts and fair play principles underpin personal jurisdiction)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (mere foreseeability or placement into channels of commerce is not sufficient for jurisdiction)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Ct., 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (‘‘something more’’ than stream-of-commerce may be required; examples of purposeful availment)
- J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011) (rejects jurisdiction based on isolated or untargeted contacts)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (corporate relationships with third parties do not by themselves establish jurisdiction over unrelated claims)
- Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (passive website and insufficient forum contacts do not establish specific jurisdiction)
- Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977) (when the record includes affidavits, plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts)
- Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008) (jurisdictional discovery should not be granted on mere hunches)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (conflicts in affidavits resolved in plaintiff’s favor if plaintiff submits responsive affidavits)
- In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2013) (sets out the three-part specific jurisdiction test)
- Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2017) (burden shifts to defendant to show jurisdiction would be unreasonable after plaintiff meets first two prongs)
- Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2003) (jurisdictional discovery ordinarily granted where pertinent jurisdictional facts are controverted)