Lorenzo Mendoza Martinez v. Avions De Transport Regional
764 F.3d 1062
9th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiffs, heirs of Lorenzo Mendoza Cervantes, sue ATR in N.D. Cal. for defective design/construction of an ATR airplane that crashed near Cuba in 2010, killing all aboard.
- ATR is a French company with HQ and principal place of business in France; it has no CA offices and is not licensed to do business in California.
- AT R’s CA contacts include selling parts to CA suppliers, sending representatives to CA, advertising in CA, selling planes to a CA company, and flight operations by Empire Airlines on a CA route; ATR North America moved its headquarters from Virginia to Florida.
- Plaintiffs served ATR at its France headquarters; district court declined jurisdiction but allowed limited jurisdictional discovery; during discovery, plaintiffs served ATR’s VP of marketing in CA.
- After discovery, district court granted ATR’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; plaintiffs appeal arguing (1) Burnham tag jurisdiction over corporations, and (2) ATR’s CA contacts create general jurisdiction; court concludes Burnham does not apply to corporations and ATR is not essentially at home in CA, so general jurisdiction does not exist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Burnham tag jurisdiction applies to corporations. | Martinez asserts Burnham allows tag jurisdiction over ATR via in-state service on an officer. | ATR contends Burnham does not apply to corporations, only natural persons. | Burnham does not apply to corporations. |
| Whether ATR’s CA contacts support general jurisdiction. | ATR’s CA business contacts show extensive, systematic activity warranting general jurisdiction. | At most, CA contacts are insufficient to render ATR essentially at home in CA. | ATR is not subject to general jurisdiction in California. |
| Whether ATR’s CA contacts could render ATR essentially at home under Daimler. | In-state activities plus CA sales and advertising are substantial. | No, ATR is not essentially at home in CA; Daimler limits general jurisdiction to the place of incorporation or principal place of business. | Not essentially at home in CA; Daimler controls. |
| Whether additional jurisdictional discovery could alter the outcome. | Discovery about ATR North America might uncover essential contacts. | Discovery would be futile; ATR is not at home in CA. | denial of further discovery affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnham v. Superior Court, 495 U.S. 604 (1990) (tag jurisdiction for individuals; not applicable to corporations)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) (general jurisdiction limited to at-home corporations; exceptional cases required)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (foundation of modern due-process-based jurisdiction; contacts-based standard)
- Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952) (general jurisdiction based on extensive national/worldwide activities)
- Chan v. Society Expeditions, Inc., 39 F.3d 1398 (1994) (distinguishes service effectiveness from general jurisdiction over corporations)