Sampson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
2:12-cv-00244
D. UtahDec 9, 2013Background
- Plaintiffs Carol and David Sampson (Utah residents) allege Carol was injured while being carried down air stairs in a wheelchair by Serviseg employees after a Delta flight arrived in Cancun, Mexico. Plaintiffs sued Delta and Serviseg; claim includes Montreal Convention-based federal claim and proposed state-law negligence claim.
- Serviseg is a Mexico City–based company that provides airport security and wheelchair assistance to airlines in Mexico; it has no employees, offices, property, registered agent, or business operations in Utah or elsewhere in the U.S.
- Serviseg submitted an affidavit establishing its activities occur solely in Mexico and that it never transacted business or contracted to supply services in the United States.
- Serviseg moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and lack of personal jurisdiction; Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend to add a state-law negligence claim and to plead diversity jurisdiction, and requested jurisdictional discovery.
- The court concluded it may have subject-matter jurisdiction over the Montreal Convention claim but must first resolve personal jurisdiction over Serviseg; it analyzed national/treaty service, Utah’s long-arm/due-process standards, general and specific jurisdiction, and reasonableness factors.
- Court found no general or specific personal jurisdiction over Serviseg, denied jurisdictional discovery as speculative/fishing, granted Serviseg’s motion to dismiss, and denied Plaintiffs’ motion to amend as futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Montreal Convention authorizes service of process on Serviseg (nationwide/worldwide service) | Montreal Convention governs claims and should permit service necessary to adjudicate the treaty claim | Montreal Convention is procedurally silent on service; Article 33(4) defers to forum procedural law | Montreal Convention does not authorize nationwide/worldwide service; FRCP governs service |
| Whether Utah courts have personal jurisdiction over Serviseg (general jurisdiction) | Serviseg acted as Delta’s agent; agency could impute Delta’s contacts to establish general jurisdiction | Serviseg has no continuous/substantial contacts with Utah; all acts occurred in Mexico; no agency contacts in Utah | No general jurisdiction: Serviseg lacks substantial continuous forum activity and agency allegations insufficient |
| Whether Utah courts have personal jurisdiction over Serviseg (specific jurisdiction) | Plaintiffs argue Serviseg’s contract with Delta and injury to Utah resident justify specific jurisdiction | Serviseg’s conduct was expressly aimed at Mexico; contacts with Utah were random/fortuitous (unilateral third-party activity) | No specific jurisdiction: Serviseg did not purposefully direct activities at Utah and plaintiff’s injuries did not arise from Utah-directed contacts |
| Whether Plaintiffs should get jurisdictional discovery and leave to amend | Discovery could reveal contacts/contracts showing purposeful availment; amendment to add negligence and diversity should be allowed | Discovery is speculative and burdensome; amendment is futile because jurisdiction is lacking | Denied jurisdictional discovery (fishing expedition); denied leave to amend as futile because amended complaint would still lack personal jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (courts may dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without first establishing subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (sequencing of jurisdictional issues)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (minimum contacts and foreseeability)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and forum selection)
- Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063 (Tenth Circuit standard for specific jurisdiction purposeful-direction analysis)
- Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Heliqwest Int’l, Ltd., 385 F.3d 1291 (factors for reasonableness of exercising jurisdiction)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (standards for leave to amend pleadings)
- Wenz v. Memery Crystal, 55 F.3d 1503 (plaintiff’s prima facie burden on jurisdictional facts)