Copeland v. WRBM

679 S.W.3d 30

Julius COPELAND, Appellant,

v.WRBM, LLC d/b/a Western Rivers Boat Management, Inc., Respondent.

No. ED 111141

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern Distinct, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: July 25, 2023

Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied October 17, 2023

Application for Transfer Denied December 19, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, Cause No. 2122-CC00575, Honorable Joan L. Moriarty, Judge

FOR APPELLANT: Patrick K. Bader, Jacob C. Murov, 230 S. Bemiston, Suite 1401, Clayton, Missouri 63105, Jonathan E. Taylor, 2001 K Street NW, Suite 850 North, Washington, DC 20006.

FOR RESPONDENT: Ronald B. Zielger, Ryan T. Harding, 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

Cristian M. Stevens, J.

Introduction

[1-3] Respondent WRBM, LLC d/b/a Western Rivers Boat Management, Inc. ("Employer") moved to dismiss Appellant Julius Copeland’s First Amended Petition for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the First Amended Petition without prejudice. Appellant now appeals. We affirm the trial court’s order dismissing the First Amended Petition without prejudice.¹

Background

Factual Background

The facts, according to the pleadings and jurisdictional discovery, are as follows.

Employer is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Kentucky. It is a barge company that performs towing and marine transportation work with its 34 vessels. Three of the vessels normally operate on the Upper Mississippi River. Employer tows barges within and outside the State of Missouri. Employer’s clients are barge lines from all over the country, meaning some clients are located in Missouri and others are outside Missouri. Two of Employer’s clients are Heartland Barge and SCF Marine, which have their corporate offices in the St. Louis, Missouri area.

Employer uses the portion of the Mississippi River in Missouri to access the Upper Mississippi River marketplace. When Employer’s vessels travel through the Mississippi River adjacent to St. Louis, they use locks 24 through 28 at the St. Louis harbor.

Employer markets itself as a provider of services in the Upper Mississippi River, which runs between St. Paul, Minnesota and St. Louis. St. Louis is marked on a map on the "contact us" page of Employer’s website.

Approximately 80 of Employer’s employees reside in Missouri, but Employer does not solicit or target Missouri residents in particular. One such employee was Appellant, and Employer was aware of his Mis- souri residence. Appellant worked on the deck as a member of the crew of the M/V Tate Oglesby ("the Vessel"), which traveled throughout the portion of the Mississippi River in Missouri. Appellant received work assignments, employment-related correspondence, direct deposits, medical care for on-the-job injuries (paid for by Employer), and tax records in Missouri from Employer. Appellant traveled hundreds of miles through Missouri to get to Employer’s vessels.

Sometime before May 1, 2018, Employer contacted Appellant in Missouri and gave him a work assignment for a trip on the Vessel on the Mississippi River. Appellant traveled northbound hundreds of miles in a van supplied by Employer, starting at Employer’s office in Paducah, Kentucky, to catch the Vessel in Iowa and join the crew for the trip.

To get to the location where Appellant eventually was injured, the Vessel would have traveled southbound out of the Tennessee River, into the Ohio River at Paducah, out of the Ohio River at Cairo, Illinois, into the Mississippi River to St. Louis, and approximately 500 miles northbound on the Mississippi River to a location between Iowa and Wisconsin. From the time the Vessel traveled northbound on the Mississippi River from Cairo to the MissouriIowa state line, it was between Missouri and Illinois and at least adjacent to Missouri.

For this particular trip, Appellant boarded the Vessel on April 16, 2018 near Burlington, Iowa and was scheduled to work until May 8, 2018. Half of Appellant’s trip aboard the Vessel occurred in Missouri. Prior to this voyage, the Vessel was "serviced" in Missouri.² The Vessel also was serviced outside Missouri. At various times, the Vessel was inspected and repaired at the First Marine, LLC shipyard in Tennessee.

On May 1, 2018, the Vessel was between Iowa and Wisconsin, hundreds of miles upriver from Missouri. At that time, Appellant suffered severe and disabling right shoulder injuries while pulling heavy equipment as the Vessel took on water due to defects in its hull.

Following Appellant’s injuries, the Vessel traveled southbound on the Mississippi River through Missouri. Appellant received medical treatment for his injuries in Missouri, and Employer has yet to pay for the treatment.

Procedural Background

On March 22, 2021, Appellant filed his original petition. Employer moved to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 55.27.³ On Appellant’s motion, the trial court compelled Employer to engage in discovery related to personal jurisdiction, including interrogatories, requests for production, and a deposition, pursuant to Rule 56.01(b)(1).

After engaging in jurisdictional discovery, Appellant filed his First Amended Petition on March 3, 2022.⁴ The First Amend- ed Petition alleged negligence under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure under general maritime law.⁵ On March 17, 2022, Employer moved to dismiss the First Amended Petition for lack of personal jurisdiction. Employer argued that Appellant’s alleged injury did not occur in Missouri, Employer is a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business in Kentucky, and the trial court was without general personal jurisdiction. Employer also argued that Appellant’s claims "do not arise from any claimed contacts with Missouri, as required for … specific personal jurisdiction."

After extensive briefing and argument, the trial court granted Employer’s motion to dismiss on November 7, 2022. The court noted that Appellant's First Amended Petition did not state the location of the Vessel when Appellant was injured, but an affidavit submitted in jurisdictional discovery "confirmed that on the date of the alleged injury, the vessel was on the river between Iowa and Wisconsin." The court thus concluded, among other things, that "the incident giving rise to the suit did not occur in the State of Missouri and Missouri does not have specific jurisdiction over Defendant." Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the First Amended Petition without prejudice. Appellant did not replead and now appeals.

Discussion

Standard of Review

[4, 5] The trial court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo. Schlafly v. Cori, 647 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Mo. banc 2022). When a defendant challenges a court’s personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the defendant’s contacts with the forum state are sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. State ex rel. LG Chem, Ltd. v. McLaughlin, 599 S.W.3d 899, 903 (Mo. banc 2020). Whether the plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the trial court has personal jurisdiction is a question of law, which this Court reviews de novo. Id. at 902.

[6-8] A reviewing court will take the allegations in the pleadings as trae to determine whether they establish facts adequate to subject the defendant to jurisdiction in the forum state. Andra v. Left Gate Prop. Holding, Inc., 453 S.W.3d 216, 224 (Mo. banc 2015). When the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is based on facts not in the record, a court may also consider affidavits and depositions. Id.; Babb v. Bartlett, 638 S.W.3d 97, 104 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021); Rule 55.27(a)(2); Rule 55.28. Such consideration does not convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment as the trial court’s inquiry is limited to an examination of the petition on its face and the supporting jurisdictional discovery to determine the limited question of personal jurisdiction. Andra, 453 S.W.3d at 224. The circuit court can believe or disbelieve any statement in the affidavits, and factual determinations are within the sole discretion of the circuit court. Id.

[9] We will affirm on any basis supported by the record, regardless of the grounds on which the circuit court relied. Cent. Tr. Bank v. Branch, 651 S.W.3d 826, 830 (Mo. banc 2022); DLJ Mortg. Cap., Inc. v. Creative Client Recovery, Inc., 637 S.W.3d 612, 618 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021).

Analysis

[10, 11] Personal jurisdiction is a court’s power over the parties in a given case. McLaughlin, 599 S.W.3d at 902. Personal jurisdiction comes in two forms: general (sometimes called all-purpose) jurisdiction and specific (sometimes called case-linked) jurisdiction. Id. In the present case, Appellant concedes the trial court did not have general jurisdiction and maintains only that the trial court had specific jurisdiction.

[12] "Missouri courts employ a two-step analysis to evaluate personal jurisdiction." Babb, 638 S.W.3d at 105 (quoting Casework, Inc. v. Hardwood Assoc., Inc., 466 S.W.3d 622, 626 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015)). To subject a non-resident defendant to specific personal jurisdiction in Missouri, a plaintiff must plead and prove two elements: (1) that the suit arose from any of the activities enumerated in the long-arm statute, Section 506.500;⁶ and (2) that the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with Missouri to satisfy due process. State ex rel. Key Ins. Co. v. Roldan, 587 S.W.3d 638, 641 (Mo. banc 2019); Babb, 638 S.W.3d at 105; Lindley v. Midwest Pulmonary Consultants, P.C., 55 S.W.3d 906, 909 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001).

[13] Pursuant to this analysis, we first consider whether Appellant pled that his suit arose from any of the activities enumerated in the long-arm statute. See Babb, 638 S.W.3d at 106. The long-arm statute provides, in relevant part:

1. Any person or firm, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, or any corporation, who in person or...