Bustos v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.

1

ARTHUR BUSTOS, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT ALAN BOGGS, TERRI TRICARICO, individually, BILLY BOGGS, individually, PAULA JO PASCHALL, individually, and CORDIS RAY FULLER, individually, Plaintiffs, v. RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., and ARLIE SHAWN JORDAN, individually, Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-00679-DHU-JHR

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

May 17, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HON DAVID HERRERA URIAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Ryder Truck Rental Inc.'s, (hereinafter “Defendant Ryder” or “Ryder”) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. (Doc. 17) (hereinafter “Motion to Dismiss”). Pursuant to the Court's February 20, 2024, Order, Plaintiffs filed their Response to Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction on March 1, 2024. (Doc. 38) (hereinafter “Response to Motion to Dismiss”). Defendant Ryder filed its Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction on March 13, 2024. (Doc. 39). While the Motion to Dismiss was pending Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint on Feb. 16, 2024, that is now also before the Court. (Doc. 32). Defendant Ryder filed a response in opposition to the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint on March 1, 2024. (Doc. 37). The Court, having reviewed the parties' submissions, arguments, relevant law, and being fully informed of the premises, now concludes that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and that Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is DENIED AS MOOT.

I. BACKGROUND

This suit arises from an automobile accident that occurred on February 1, 2023. Compl. ¶¶ 2.3-2.5 (Doc. 1-1). The plaintiffs are Arthur Bustos, the personal representative of the Estate of Robert Alan Boggs, Teri Tricarico, the mother of the deceased Robert Alan Boggs (hereinafter “Boggs”), Paula Jo Paschall, Boggs's fiance, and Cordis Ray Fuller, Boggs's maternal grandfather. Id. ¶¶ 1.1, 1.2.^[1] The defendants are Ryder, a Florida corporation whose principal place of business is in Florida, id. ¶ 1.4; Def. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.'s Original Answer ¶ 12 (Doc. 5) (hereinafter “Ryder Answer”), and Arlie Shawn Jordan (hereinafter “Defendant Jordan” or “Jordan”), an employee of Defendant Ryder who lives and works in the State of Texas. Compl. ¶ 2.4; Ryder Answer ¶ 43. At all times pertinent, Defendant Jordan was an employee of Defendant Ryder and operating a truck owned by Defendant Ryder. Compl. ¶ 2.3; Ryder Answer ¶ 5.

On the morning of February 1, 2023, Defendant Jordan was driving east on State Highway 114 in the State of Texas.^[2] Compl. ¶ 2.3; Ryder Answer ¶ 9. The deceased, Robert Alan Boggs, had parked his vehicle on the side of the road. Compl. ¶ 2.3. Defendant Jordan, driving the Ryder truck, crossed the center divider and collided head-on with Boggs's parked vehicle. Id. The collision resulted in the death of the Boggs and the injury of a Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper. Id.; Ryder Answer ¶ 9.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint for wrongful death and personal injury on June 29, 2023, against Defendants Ryder and Jordan^[3] (collectively “Defendants”) in the Fourth Judicial District Court of San Miguel County, New Mexico. Plaintiffs requested damages for loss of enjoyment of life, hedonic damages, pain, suffering, anguish, loss of inheritance, loss of consortium, cost of transporting Boggs's remains, burial costs, reimbursement for loss of the vehicle and personal items, and punitive damages, with pre- and post-judgment interest applied to the same. Compl. ¶¶ 6.1-6.3, 8.1. Defendant Ryder removed the case^[4] from state court to federal court on August 15, 2023.^[5] Doc. 1.

On January 5, 2024, Defendant Ryder filed its Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 17). Ryder is a Florida corporation with a principal place of business in Florida. Id. at 5. Defendant Ryder argues that it is entitled to dismissal because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Ryder as its presence in New Mexico is not “continuous and systematic” such that it would be at home in New Mexico. Id. at 4. Defendant Ryder asserts that its one rental location in New Mexico does not establish general jurisdiction in New Mexico. Id. at 5. Ryder is not incorporated in New Mexico, though it is registered with the New Mexico Secretary of State, as required by New Mexico law. Id.; Compl. ¶ 1.4; Ryder Answer ¶ 4.

This Court held a hearing on February 20, 2024, and granted Plaintiffs a ten (10) day extension to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss. See Clerk's Minutes (Doc. 35). Defendants were given fourteen (14) days to reply to any response filed by Plaintiffs. Id. Plaintiffs' response, which included a request for additional discovery, was filed on March 1, 2024. (Doc. 38). Defendant Ryder filed its reply on March 13, 2024. (Doc. 39).

Meanwhile, on February 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. (Doc. 32) (hereinafter “Plaintiffs' Motion”). Pursuant to D.N.M.L.R.-Civ 15.1, Plaintiffs attached their proposed First Amended Complaint for Wrongful Death and Personal Injury Damages to Plaintiffs' Motion. (Doc. 32-1) (hereinafter “Proposed Amended Complaint”). Plaintiffs' Proposed Amended Complaint seeks to rebut Defendant Ryder's Motion to Dismiss by pleading additional facts related to the Court's jurisdiction over Defendant. See id. Defendant Ryder filed a response in opposition on March 1, 2024. (Doc. 37).

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

The burden of proving personal jurisdiction rests upon the plaintiff. See Wenz v. Memery Crystal, 55 F.3d 1503, 1505 (10th Cir. 1995) (“When the court's jurisdiction is contested, the plaintiff has the burden of proving jurisdiction exists.”). A court may have jurisdiction over a defendant through general personal jurisdiction or specific personal jurisdiction. See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2851, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011). If a court has general personal jurisdiction over a party, the “court may exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state party for any purpose.” Dental Dynamics, LLC v. Jolly Dental Grp., LLC, 946 F.3d 1223, 1229, n.2 (10th Cir. 2020) (internal citations omitted). If a court has specific personal jurisdiction, then the “court may exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state party only if the cause of action relates to the party's contacts with the forum state.” Id. (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). “Federal courts ordinarily follow state law in determining the bounds of their jurisdiction over persons.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 125, 134 S.Ct. 746, 753, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014). Any state statutory basis for personal jurisdiction, general or specific, must comport with due process. See Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1121, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014); Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1)(A).

“The Due Process Clause protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful contacts, ties or relations.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2181, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Jurisdictional “restrictions are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. They are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective States.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 251, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1238, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). If the plaintiff fails to meet her burden of proving personal jurisdiction, the court should dismiss the claims without prejudice. See Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir. 2006) (“a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction should be entered without prejudice”).

A. General Personal Jurisdiction

“General jurisdiction is based on an out-of-state defendant's continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state, and does not require that the claim be related to those contacts.” Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063, 1078 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Where a court has general jurisdiction over a defendant, that defendant may be called into that court to answer for any alleged wrong, committed in any place, no matter how unrelated to the defendant's contacts with the forum.” Am. Fid. Assur. Co. v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 810 F.3d 1234, 1238 (10th Cir. 2016) (quoting with approval Abelesz v. OTP Bank, 692 F.3d 638, 654 (7th Cir. 2012)). But general jurisdiction only exists when the defendant's “affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.” Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919.

The general jurisdiction analysis “calls for an appraisal of a corporation's activities in their entirety nationwide and worldwide. A corporation that operates in many places can scarcely be deemed at home in all of them.” Daimler, 571 U.S. at 139, n.20. Likewise, “[s]imply because a defendant has a contractual relationship and business dealings with a person or entity in the forum state does not subject him to general jurisdiction there.” Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235, 1246-47 (10th Cir. 2011). Crucial to the general jurisdiction analysis, then, “are a corporation's place of incorporation and principal place of business.” Daimler, 571 U.S. at 118; see also Am. Fid. Assur. Co., 810 F.3d at 1241 (“The place of incorporation and principal place of business are particularly, though not solely, important.”). Also considered are the extent to which the defendant (1) “solicits business in the state.. . (2).. .sends agents into the state on a regular basis to solicit business; (3).holds itself out as doing business in the forum state, through advertisements, listings or bank...