Dangerfield v. Mita Invs.

1

MELINDA A. DANGERFIELD, Plaintiff, v. MITA INVESTMENTS, INC., a Canadian Corporation, and ICP MEDICAL, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:22-0088

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Huntington Division

February 29, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

ROBERT C. CHAMBERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant Mita Investments, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (“Def.'s Mot.”). See ECF No. 98. Upon consideration the Court GRANTS the motion. However, before the Court dismisses this case, it requests further briefing on the prospect of transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.^[1]

BACKGROUND

Melinda Dangerfield is a registered nurse at Herhel “Woody” Williams Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Huntington, West Virginia. See Second Am. Compl ¶¶ 1, 4, ECF No. 64. One day at work, she slipped and “fell hard on her left side” while wearing hospital-issued shoe covers. Id. ¶ 17. She injured her left hip, shoulder, and left ulnar nerve. See id. ¶ 18. Dangerfield sued. In her Second Amended Complaint, she alleges ICP Medical, LLC distributed a defective shoe cover manufactured by Mita Investments, Inc. to her hospital in West Virginia See id. ¶¶ 8, 12.

* * *

Mita Investments, Inc. is a Canadian corporation headquartered in Montreal. See id. ¶ 2. It designs manufactures, and distributes shoe covers. See id. Mita initially sold shoe covers only in Canada. See Pl.'s Resp., Ex. A at 21:21-22:6 (Kassar Dep.), ECF No. 106-1. But after initial success, Mita decided to access the American markets. See id. at 42:5-14 (calling this decision a “logical expansion”). Mita then visited trade shows in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and Texas. See id. at 43:7-10. It did not visit West Virginia. See id. at 45:7-9.

Eventually, Mita met ICP-a Delaware LLC with membership in Tennessee. See Second Am. Compl. ¶ 4; Pl.'s Resp., Ex. B at 48:10-22 (Macleod Dep.), ECF No. 106-2. The two corporations entered an agreement. Under their agreement, Mita sold shoe covers to ICP in Missouri. See Def.'s Mem., Ex. B ¶ 13. ICP then distributed the shoe covers under private label throughout the United States. See Second Am. Compl. ¶ 4. ICP branded and labeled Mita shoe covers as ISP products, independently packaged Mita shoe covers, and offered consumers an ISP-not Mita-warranty. See id. ¶¶ 4, 12.

At some point, ICP sent a shoe cover to Dangerfield's hospital pursuant to a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' federal supply schedule contract. See id. ¶¶ 8, 12. Whether Mita knew ICP serviced veterans' hospitals-including in West Virginia-is unclear. See Kassar Dep. at 51:10-52:13 (presenting conflicting responses); Macleod Dep. at 139:2-22 (similar).

* **

In February 2022, Dangerfield filed suit. In her complaint, Dangerfield named ICP and Concordance Healthcare Solutions, LLC as defendants. See Compl. ¶¶ 2-3, ECF No. 1. In July 2022, she dropped Concordance and added Aspen. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2-3, ECF No. 27. In December 2022, she added Mita. See Second Am. Compl. ¶ 2. All said, Dangerfield currently names Mita, Aspen, and ICP as defendants. See id. ¶¶ 2-4.^[2]

On January 9, 2023, ICP filed a crossclaim against Mita. See ECF No. 73. It alleged any of its liability is “secondary to the primary liability” of Mita. Id. at 13 ¶ 7. Should Dangerfield succeed, Mita would be liable to ICP through indemnification and contribution. See id. ¶ 8.

On April 20, 2023, Mita executed a Waiver of Service. See ECF No. 76. In the waiver, Mita “ke[pt] all defenses or objections to . . . the court's jurisdiction.” Id. at 1.

On July 5, 2023, Mita filed its answer to Dangerfield's Second Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 78. There, Mita asserted it is “not subject to personal jurisdiction in West Virginia” because it “lacks sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state.” Id. at 13.

On July 13, 2023, Mita participated in a Rule 26(f) conference. See ECF No. 79.

On July 20, 2023, Mita filed an Amended Answer. See ECF No. 64. Mita again asserted it is “not subject to personal jurisdiction in West Virginia” because it “lacks sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state.” Id. at 13. Mita also filed an Answer to ICP's crossclaim. See ECF No. 84. Mita “adopt[ed] and incorporate[ed]” all affirmative defenses referenced in its answer to Dangerfield's Second Amended Complaint-including personal jurisdiction. See id. at 3.

On August 31, 2023, Mita shared Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures and its Objections & Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission. See ECF Nos. 87, 88. Mita amended its Objections in November. See ECF No. 91.

On October 9, 2023, Mita participated in ICP's deposition of Dangerfield. See ECF No. 4. See also Pl.'s Resp. at 6. It took sixty-four pages of testimony. See Pl.'s Resp. at 6.

On November 9, 2023, Dangerfield noticed depositions of Liz Macleod-an ISP representative-and Michael Kassar-a Mita representative. See ECF Nos. 93, 94. Dangerfield scheduled Kassar's deposition for November 29, 2023.

On November 27, 2023, Mita filed the pending motion. See ECF No. 98.

LEGAL STANDARD

A plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating personal jurisdiction “at every stage following the defendant's jurisdictional challenge.” Sneha Media & Ent. LLC v. Associated Broad. Co. P Ltd., 911 F.3d 192, 196-97 (4th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up).

When a defendant challenges personal jurisdiction only on “motions papers, supporting legal memoranda[,] and the relevant allegations of a complaint,” the plaintiff must make a “prima facie showing” of personal jurisdiction. New Wellington Fin. Corp. v. Flagship Resort Dev. Corp., 416 F.3d 290, 294 (4th Cir. 2005). In contrast, when the Court provides the parties a “fair opportunity” to present “both the relevant jurisdictional evidence and their legal arguments,” the plaintiff must prove personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Grayson v. Anderson, 816 F.3d 262, 268 (4th Cir. 2016).

In both cases, the Court construes all pleading allegations in the plaintiff's favor, assumes its credibility, and draws the “most favorable” inferences for the “existence of jurisdiction.” In re Celotex, 124 F.3d 619, 628 (4th Cir. 1997) (quotation omitted).

The Court need not decide which evidentiary standard applies because Dangerfield fails to prove a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. See infra Part II; Wallace v. Yahama Motors Corp., U.S.A., 2022 WL 61430, at *1 n.1 (4th Cir. Jan. 6, 2022) (reaching similar conclusion).

ANALYSIS

Mita's Motion to Dismiss raises three issues. First, the parties dispute whether Mita waived its right challenge personal jurisdiction. Compare Pl.'s Resp. at 8-12 with Def.'s Reply at 2-4. Second the parties dispute whether Mita purposefully availed itself of West Virginia. Compare Def.'s Mem. at 8-13 with Pl.'s Resp. at 12-17. Finally, the parties dispute whether transfer is proper should no personal jurisdiction exist. Compare Pl.'s Resp. at 17-18 with Def.'s Reply at 8-9. The Court considers each dispute in turn.

I

The Court begins with waiver. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(2), a defendant must assert lack of personal jurisdiction in its first responsive pleading to avoid waiver. See Int'l Union v. Consol Energy, Inc., 243 F.Supp.3d 755, 760 (S.D. W.Va. 2017). Rule 12(h), however, sets only the “outer limits of waiver.” Hager v Graham, 2010 WL 753242, at *1 (N.D. W.Va. 2010) (quotation omitted). When a defendant indicates a “willingness to defend the suit,” it waives its personal jurisdiction defense. In re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair Sys. Products Liability Litig., 2016 WL 1718826, at *2 (S.D. W.Va. Apr. 7, 2016).

Determining waiver is “more [an] art than a science.” Boulger v. Woods, 917 F.3d 471, 477 (6th Cir. 2019). No “bright line[s]” exist. Edwards v. Clinical Solutions, 2020 WL 7249906, at *3 (D.S.C. Oct. 16, 2020). Instead, courts “consider the degree of participation in the litigation” including appearances, requests for reliefs, and participation in hearings or discovery. Id. If the defendant's participation reveals a “manifest intent to submit to the court's jurisdiction,” the defendant violates the “spirit” of Rule 12(h) notwithstanding a timely Rule 12(b)(2) motion. Blankenship v. Boston Globe Media Partners, LLC, 2022 WL 329121, at *4 (S.D. W.Va. 2022).

Mita can assert its personal jurisdiction defense. It did not waive the defense. Start with its Waiver of Service on April 20, 2023. There, Mita “ke[pt] all defenses or objections to . . . the court's jurisdiction.” ECF No. 76 at 1. Consider next its first answer on July 5, 2023. There, Mita stressed it is “not subject to personal jurisdiction in West Virginia” because it “lacks sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state” in its twenty-seventh affirmative defense. ECF No. 78 at 13. These filings show an intent to challenge personal jurisdiction.

Nothing after July 5^th contradicts this intent. When Mita filed an Amended Answer, it again asserted it is “not subject to personal jurisdiction in West Virginia” because it “lacks sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state.” ECF No. 64 at 13. When Mita filed an answer to ICP's crossclaim, it “adopt[ed] and incorporate[ed]” all affirmative defenses referenced in its Amended Answer-including its personal jurisdiction defense. See ECF No. 84 at 3. These assertions make clear Mita wanted to keep its right to challenge personal jurisdiction. They do not give any party or the Court a “reasonable expectation” Mita intended to defend the case on the merits. Freedom Hawk Kayak, LLC v. Ya Tai Elec. Appliances, 908 F.Supp.2d 763, 768 (W.D. Va. 2012).

Dangerfield rebuts. First, she argues Mita's...