Tappe v. DIT, LLC
2:18-cv-01363
| W.D. Wash. | Aug 30, 2018Background
- Decedent Samuel Tappe, a Louisiana resident and Army veteran, enrolled at Divers Institute of Technology (DIT) in Seattle and signed an enrollment agreement in Washington.
- On October 26, 2016, Samuel participated in a 124-foot training dive in Lake Washington; he was found dead in his Seattle apartment on October 28, 2016, after classmates reported post-dive illness and the police located him.
- Plaintiff Jayne Tappe filed wrongful death and survival claims in the Western District of Louisiana alleging negligent maintenance of dive equipment and DIT’s failure to check on Samuel after he missed class/testing.
- DIT is a Washington LLC with its principal place of business, licensing, operations, and virtually all witnesses and evidence in Seattle; it has no offices or principals in Louisiana and enrolled very few Louisiana residents.
- DIT moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer venue to the Western District of Washington; the magistrate recommended transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction | Louisiana court can exercise jurisdiction over DIT based on DIT’s website/enrollment of some LA students | DIT lacks sufficient contacts with Louisiana; activities occurred in Washington | Court declined to resolve definitively but concluded jurisdiction likely lacking and transfer preferable |
| Specific vs. general jurisdiction | Plaintiff sought discovery to explore online/recruiting contacts to establish jurisdiction | DIT argued contacts are minimal and unrelated to the claim | Court found contacts insufficient for general jurisdiction; claim does not arise from LA-directed activity, so specific jurisdiction doubtful |
| Venue propriety | Chose Western District of Louisiana as forum | Venue proper in Western District of Washington where events, witnesses, and defendant are located | Venue in Louisiana not supported; Washington is proper venue |
| Transfer under §1404(a) | Plaintiff favored keeping case in Louisiana (choice of forum) | DIT argued Washington is clearly more convenient for parties/witnesses and public interest factors | Court found DIT demonstrated clear convenience and public-interest reasons to transfer to Western District of Washington |
Key Cases Cited
- Bullion v. Gillespie, 895 F.2d 213 (5th Cir.) (jurisdictional factual disputes on pretrial motions resolved in plaintiff's favor)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (general jurisdiction requires corporation to be "essentially at home" in forum)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (U.S. 2017) (plaintiffs' claims must arise out of or relate to defendant's forum contacts for specific jurisdiction)
- In re Volkswagen of America, Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (standards and private/public interest factors for § 1404(a) transfer)
- PaineWebber Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Private Bank (Switzerland), 260 F.3d 453 (5th Cir.) (cases may be transferred to a forum where personal jurisdiction exists even if original forum lacks jurisdiction)