Martins v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC

266 A.3d 753

Alison N. MARTINS, Individually and as Co -Executrix of the Estate of John Martins

v.BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS TIRE OPERATIONS, LLC, et al.

No. 2018-143-Appeal.

PC 17-2420

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

January 20, 2022

Jeffrey A. Mega, Esq., Douglas E. Chabot, Esq., Mark B. Decof, Esq., Shad M. Miller, Esq., for Plaintiff.

Michael T. Maroney, Esq., William E. O'Gara, Esq., Brian J. Lamoreaux, Esq., for Defendants.

Present: Suttell, C.J., Robinson, and Lynch Prata, JJ.

Chief Justice Suttell, for the Court.

This case concerns the authority of the Superior Court to exercise jurisdiction over claims brought against foreign corporate defendants based on injury, resulting in death, to a Rhode Island resident following an accident that occurred outside of Rhode Island. On appeal, the plaintiff, Alison N. Martins, individually and as co-executrix of the Estate of John Martins, contests the Superior Court's entry of partial final judgment in accordance with Rule 54(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure and the dismissal of the action for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) as to the defendants, Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC (BATO); Bridgestone Americas, Inc. (BAI); and Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC (BRO) (collectively the Bridgestone defendants). The plaintiff submits that the hearing justice erred in dismissing the claims against the Bridgestone defendants based on a lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff also argues that the hearing justice erred in denying her request to conduct jurisdictional discovery. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the partial final judgment of the Superior Court and its order denying the plaintiff's request to conduct jurisdictional discovery.

IFacts and Travel

The underlying facts of this case are set forth in plaintiff's second amended complaint and in the submissions of the parties before this Court and the Superior Court. On or about September 23, 2005, Sterry Street Auto Sales, Inc. d/b/a Sterry Street Towing (Sterry Street), a Massachusetts corporation owned by the decedent, John Martins, contracted with defendant Patriot Sales and Service, Inc. (Patriot), a Massachusetts corporation and dealer of tow trucks, to act as a broker and to supply Sterry Street with a Peterbilt Model 379 rotator truck (the rotator truck).¹

On September 26, 2005, Patriot completed a purchase order with defendant Miller Industries Towing Equipment, Inc. (Miller Industries), to purchase the rotator portion of the rotator truck. The purchase order included Patriot's Rhode Island location as the "ship to" address. According to plaintiff's brief, in October 2005, Patriot contracted with defendant Peterbilt of Connecticut, Inc. d/b/a Peterbilt of Rhode Island, Inc. (Peterbilt Rhode Island), a Connecticut corporation and a subsidiary of defendant PACCAR, Inc. (PACCAR), to supply the cab and chassis of the rotator truck. The contract included a request for installation of Bridgestone M844 tires on the front axle. The shipping destination for the cab and chassis was the Miller Industries plant in Tennessee. On November 30, 2005, defendant Peterbilt Motors Company (Peterbilt Motors), a division of PACCAR, issued a certificate of origin for the rotator truck to Peterbilt Rhode Island.

In May 2006, Sterry Street issued a partial payment to Patriot for the rotator truck, and three months later Patriot sold the rotator truck to Sterry Street. Despite statements on certain documentation, the rotator truck was not actually shipped to Patriot's Rhode Island location; rather, representatives of Sterry Street traveled to the Miller Industries plant in Tennessee and drove the rotator truck to Massachusetts in August 2006.

On September 4, 2015, the decedent drove the rotator truck from Attleboro, Massachusetts, through Rhode Island, and into Connecticut, to assist in the recovery of a school bus. After completing the job and before the decedent crossed the Connecticut border into Rhode Island, one of the Bridgestone M844 tires located on the left front of the rotator truck's cab "suffered a belt and/or tread separation[.]" The decedent lost control of the vehicle, veered off the highway, and struck a tree. The rotator truck's diesel fuel then caught fire and the decedent suffered severe burns. He was airlifted from the scene of the accident in Connecticut to Rhode Island Hospital, where he died on September 27, 2015.

According to the Bridgestone defendants, Bridgestone M844 tires have been manufactured by BATO only at its plant in Tennessee. The affidavit of Bridgestone employee Brian Queiser, provided by the Bridgestone defendants, indicates that BATO likely designed the subject tire at its facilities in Ohio. The subject tire was delivered directly to Peterbilt's plant in Tennessee, where it was installed as original equipment on the rotator truck. The rotator truck was then shipped, with the tires attached, to Miller Industries in Tennessee. The subject tire remained on the rotator truck until the incident giving rise to this case occurred.

On May 24, 2017, plaintiff filed the instant action; she thereafter filed a second amended complaint against several defendants, including the Bridgestone defendants, for negligence, strict liability, breach of warranties, and punitive damages.² Subsequently, the Bridgestone defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). The plaintiff objected to the motion to dismiss and requested jurisdictional fact discovery on the personal jurisdiction question under Rule 12(b)(2).

A hearing on the matter was held on November 21, 2017. On March 8, 2018, the hearing justice issued a written decision granting the Bridgestone defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and denying plaintiff's request for jurisdictional fact discovery. Partial final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) was entered in favor of the Bridgestone defendants on April 2, 2018. The plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal on April 16, 2018.

IIIssues on Appeal

On appeal, plaintiff first submits that the hearing justice erred in determining that the Superior Court did not have specific personal jurisdiction over the Bridgestone defendants.³ The plaintiff's second contention is that the hearing justice erred when he denied plaintiff's request to conduct jurisdictional fact discovery. We address these claims of error seriatim .

APersonal JurisdictionStandard of Review

"When reviewing a challenge to personal jurisdiction, ‘we examine the pleadings, accept the facts alleged by the plaintiff as true, and view disputed facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.’ " St. Onge v. USAA Federal Savings Bank , 219 A.3d 1278, 1282 (R.I. 2019) (brackets omitted) (quoting Cassidy v. Lonquist Management Co., LLC , 920 A.2d 228, 232 (R.I. 2007) ). Questions of personal jurisdiction present a "mixed question of law and fact." Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Hawes v. Reilly , 184 A.3d 661, 665 (R.I. 2018) ). "While mixed questions of law and fact usually require more deferential treatment to the trial justice's findings of fact, ‘when deciding mixed questions of law and fact that involve constitutional issues, our review is de novo .’ " Id. (quoting Hawes , 184 A.3d at 665 ). Accordingly, we review a challenge to personal jurisdiction de novo . See, e.g. , id.

Discussion

To overcome a defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. See Cassidy , 920 A.2d at 231-32. In reviewing the record, we examine the pleadings, accept the facts alleged by the plaintiff as true, and view disputed facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See St. Onge , 219 A.3d at 1282 ; Cassidy , 920 A.2d at 232.

"To establish a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction in Rhode Island, a plaintiff's allegations must satisfy the demands of Rhode Island's long-arm statute, G.L. 1956 § 9-5-33." St. Onge , 219 A.3d at 1282 (brackets omitted) (quoting Cassidy , 920 A.2d at 232 ). That statute provides that "[e]very foreign corporation * * * that shall have the necessary minimum contacts with the state of Rhode Island, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the state of Rhode Island * * * in every case not contrary to the provisions of the constitution or laws of the United States." Section 9-5-33(a). This Court has interpreted § 9-5-33 to permit the exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the fullest extent allowed by the United States Constitution. See St. Onge , 219 A.3d at 1283.

Before this Court, plaintiff asserts that the Superior Court has specific jurisdiction over the Bridgestone defendants. The determination of whether there is specific jurisdiction over a defendant requires a two-step inquiry: (1) determining whether the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state and (2) determining whether the litigation "offend[s] traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." St. Onge , 219 A.3d at 1284 (quoting Rose v. Firstar Bank , 819 A.2d 1247, 1250 (R.I. 2003) ).

With regard to minimum contacts, we have said that "[a] party makes a successful prima facie showing of specific jurisdiction over a defendant where ‘the claim sufficiently relates to or arises from any of a defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum.’ " St. Onge , 219 A.3d at 1284 (quoting Cassidy , 920 A.2d at 233 ). "The defendant must have ‘performed some act by which it purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.’ " Id. (quoting Cassidy , 920 A.2d at 233 ). In reviewing a defendant's contacts with the forum, this Court looks to the "quality and quantity" of the contacts, St. Onge , 219 A.3d at 1285 (quoting Rose , 819 A.2d at 1250 ), and whether "the defendant's conduct and connection with...