Malcolm v. Acrylic Tank Manufacturing of Nevada
2:17-cv-01108
D. Nev.Jul 6, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Steven Malcom (Scotland resident) contracted with Acrylic Tank Manufacturing (ATM) for a custom aquarium; ATM engaged Reynolds Polymer Technology, Inc. (Reynolds) in 2007 to fabricate the tank in Colorado.
- Reynolds manufactured and shipped the tank to Scotland; Reynolds did not install the tank and had no employees or office in Nevada.
- The aquarium was installed by ATM in Scotland in 2010 and collapsed in 2015, causing extensive damage; Malcom sued ATM and Reynolds in the District of Nevada alleging several claims including negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranties against Reynolds.
- Reynolds moved to dismiss claims against it (claims 4–7) for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
- Malcom argued Reynolds’s numerous projects and business contacts in Nevada supported general jurisdiction and sought jurisdictional discovery to establish specific jurisdiction; Reynolds disputed both bases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nevada has general jurisdiction over Reynolds | Reynolds’ repeated projects and business for Nevada entities (list of large Nevada projects) make it "at home" in Nevada | Reynolds is a Colorado corporation with no office, employees, registration, property, or other systematic contacts in Nevada | No general jurisdiction: contacts insufficient to be "continuous and systematic" to render Reynolds "at home" |
| Whether Nevada has specific jurisdiction over Reynolds | Plaintiff may be a third-party beneficiary of an ATM–Reynolds contract (potentially containing Nevada choice clauses); requests jurisdictional discovery | Reynolds did not direct activities at Nevada; the claims do not arise from Reynolds’ Nevada-related activities | No prima facie showing of specific jurisdiction; plaintiff’s allegations are speculative and insufficient; jurisdictional discovery denied absent a proper motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (general jurisdiction requires affiliations so continuous and systematic as to render a defendant essentially "at home")
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (establishes due process standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (distinguishes general and specific jurisdiction principles)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (three-part test for specific jurisdiction and discussion of general jurisdiction standard)
- Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff bears burden to establish a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction)