Rodriguez v. Ford Motor Co.

GABRIEL ARTURO RASCON RODRIGUEZ,

RAYITO DEL CARMEN GUTIERREZ DE RASCON;

JAVIER ORTIZ TARANGO, deceased;

LEE HUNT, representative of the estate of JAVIER ORTIZ TARANGO;

BERTA EBILA RAMIREZ; LORENZA SUSANA ORTIZ;

MARITZA BERENICE ORTIZ RAMIREZ;

CARMEN TARANGO CASTRO; CRISTIAN ANTONIO ROMERO GARCIA,

deceased; LEE HUNT, representative of the estate of CRISTIAN

ANTONIO ROMERO GARCIA; ROBERTO ROMERO

and HILDA TELLEZ, next friend of C.D.R., a minor,

and C.D.R., a minor; ROBERTO ROMERO, individually; LAURO CRUZ,

deceased; LEE HUNT, representative of the estate of LAURO CRUZ; ORALIA NAJERA;

MARIA CONCEPTION CRUZ NAJERA, individually and as next friend of L.M.A.C.,

a minor; CARLOS CRUZ; OLGALIDIA CRUZ; EUFEMIO CRUZ; MIGUEL CRUZ; PERLA

ALEJANDRA CRUZ; MAYRA PAMELA CRUZ; MARIA ESTHER CRUZ; AGUSTINA CRUZ;

JAVIER ACOSTA RAMIREZ; BERENICE ACOSTA; JOSE JAVIER ACOSTA;

JAVIER ACOSTA; ADRIAN RAMOS, individually

and as next friend of R.A.R.R., a minor, A.R.R., a minor, Y.A.R.R., a minor, and A.R.R., a minor;

YADIRA RUVALCABA DE RAMOS; LUIS CANSECO VAZQUEZ, individually

and as next friend of G.C., a minor, and S.A.C., a minor;

GUADALUPE LOPEZ; JULIA CANSECO; LUIS CANSECO;

LUIS RAUL ORTEGA GABALDON; JESUS ALEJANDRO JIMENEZ ORTEGA;and ERNESTO VARGAS LOPEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, and COOPER TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants,andFERNANDO GAYTAN BUSTOS, Defendant-Appellee,andFERNANDO GAYTAN BUSTOS, Cross-Plaintiff/Appellee, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and COOPER TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, Cross-Defendants/Appellants.

NO. A-1-CA-35910

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

June 19, 2018

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY

Francis J. Mathew, District Judge

Jaramillo Touchet LLC

David J. Jaramillo

Albuquerque, NM

Touchet Law Firm, PC

Maria E. Touchet

Albuquerque, NM

The Edwards Law Firm

John B. Gsanger

Gary Scott Marshall

Corpus Christi, TX

for Appellees Gabriel Rascon Rodriguez, et al.

Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A.

Jeffrey M. Croasdell

Todd E. Rinner

Albuquerque, NM

Hogan Lovells US LLP

Sean Marotta

Washington, D.C.

for Appellant Ford Motor Company

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP

Eric R. Burris

Albuquerque, NM

Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP

Troy L. Vancil

San Antonio, TX

for Appellant Cooper Tire and Rubber CompanyLaw Offices of James B. Ragan

James B. Ragan

Corpus Christi, TX

for Appellee Fernando Gaytan Bustos

OPINION

FRENCH, Judge.

{1} Plaintiffs sued Ford Motor Company and Cooper Tire and Rubber Company (collectively, Defendants) for injuries sustained when their vehicle rolled over while they were traveling through New Mexico. Defendants each filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which the district court denied. We granted Defendants' applications for interlocutory appeal and consolidated both appeals. Concluding that New Mexico has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants, we affirm the district court.

BACKGROUND

{2} In August 2012, Plaintiffs, all Mexican nationals, were passengers in a 1993 Ford E-350 Super Club Wagon that was en route to Colorado from Mexico. While traveling on U.S. Highway 54 in Guadalupe County, New Mexico, "the tread peeled off the right rear tire on the vehicle." The vehicle left the road and rolled three times. Two of the occupants, Javier Ortiz Tarango and Cristian Antonio Romero, were fatally ejected from the vehicle, while occupant Lauro Cruz was rendered quadriplegic and eventually died from his injuries. Occupants Gabriel Arturo Rascon Rodriguez, Javier Acosta Ramirez, Adrian Ramos, Luis Canseco, Luis Raul OrtegaGabaldon, Jesus Alejandro Jimenez Ortega, and Ernesto Vargas Lopez all sustained injuries as a result of the crash.

{3} In August 2015, Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death and personal injury complaint against Defendants as well as against Fernando Gaytan Bustos who installed the tire on the van in 2012. Shortly after the complaint was filed, Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. They argued that because the van and tire were not purchased in New Mexico, New Mexico had no personal jurisdiction over them. In particular, Ford argued that the Ford E-350 was not designed in New Mexico, was manufactured in Ohio, was sold first by an independent dealer located in Kentucky, and "was not serviced by any Ford independent dealer located in the State of New Mexico[.]" Moreover, at the time of the accident, the van was licensed in Mexico, and was being driven by a citizen of Mexico. Cooper argued that the tire was not designed in New Mexico and was manufactured in Cooper's Texarkana, Arkansas plant. In addition, the tire was purchased in Oklahoma, and installed on the van by Fernando Gaytan Bustos in Mexico.

{4} In response, Plaintiffs provided evidence of Defendants' New Mexico contacts, which we summarize in the following paragraphs. Ford has fourteen official Ford dealerships in New Mexico. Ford also engages in marketing targeted at New Mexico consumers, including Ford sponsorship of New Mexico events such as the 2013professional bull riding championship. Ford maintains an interactive website that allows New Mexico consumers to obtain a quote for a Ford vehicle, search inventory of Ford vehicles in stock in New Mexico, apply for credit to purchase vehicles in New Mexico, configure a Ford vehicle, and obtain a purchase price. Ford has "in-forum advertising and defense and indemnity contracts with its dealerships," and Ford has been a frequent party in New Mexico litigation.

{5} Cooper has sixty-two official Cooper tire dealers in New Mexico, and Cooper personnel travel to Cooper tire dealers "to assess the in-field performance of its tires[.]" Cooper maintains a website with an interactive tire service bulletin page providing information to New Mexico consumers about services available through Cooper dealers. Cooper's advertising targets New Mexico consumers, including via sponsorship of professional bull riding events in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Cooper has appeared as a litigant in New Mexico courts.

{6} After a hearing on Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the district court entered an order denying the motions but noted that the decision "involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and an immediate appeal from this order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." Defendants timely filed applications for interlocutory appeal, which we now consider.

DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

{7} "The determination whether a district court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is a question of law that we review de novo." Sproul v. Rob & Charlies, Inc., 2013-NMCA-072, ¶ 6, 304 P.3d 18. "Plaintiffs have the burden of making a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction." Zavala v. El Paso Cty. Hosp. Dist., 2007-NMCA-149, ¶ 13, 143 N.M. 36, 172 P.3d 173. When a party contests the exercise of personal jurisdiction, the party asserting jurisdiction may not rely on its pleadings but must come forward with affidavits or other evidence supporting jurisdiction. Gallegos v. Frezza, 2015-NMCA-101, ¶ 9, 357 P.3d 408. Because the district court based its ruling on the parties' pleadings, attachments, and non-evidentiary hearings, this Court applies "a standard of review mirroring that of our standard governing appeals from summary judgment." Sproul, 2013-NMCA-072, ¶ 6. This Court will "construe the pleadings and affidavits in the light most favorable to the complainant" who needs only to "make a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction exists." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Dismissal is proper in this case only if all facts Plaintiffs allege collectively fail to make a prima facie case of jurisdiction over Defendants based on the statements in the pleadings.

Analysis

{8} When determining personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants, we apply a two-step analysis. Id. ¶ 7. First, we determine whether personal jurisdiction satisfies the "requirements of New Mexico's long-arm statute." Id. If it does, we then turn to whether Defendants had sufficient minimum contacts to subject them to suit in New Mexico. See id. The parties do not dispute that the requirements of the long-arm statute are satisfied, and we thus turn to the second step in our analysis.

{9} Sproul is dispositive of the analysis here. In Sproul, we held that New Mexico courts could exercise jurisdiction over a Chinese corporation defendant who manufactured bicycle parts when the defendant placed allegedly defective products on the market with the intention that they be distributed and sold throughout the United States, including in New Mexico. Id. ¶¶ 2-3, 45. In determining whether the defendant had established sufficient contacts to allow the court to exercise specific jurisdiction in that products liability case, we looked at whether the defendant had placed products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that their products would be purchased and used in the forum state. Id. ¶ 20. This inquiry required some activity on the part of the defendant to directly or indirectly serve the market in the forum state. Id. In other words, to satisfy due process there had to be "some act purposefully directed at the forum state[,]" such that the defendant reasonablyanticipated being brought into a New Mexico court. Id. ¶ 25. The claims at issue did not need to be causally related to the defendant's contacts in the forum; they needed only "lie in the wake" of the defendant's activities in the forum state. Id. ¶ 17 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).

{10} Applying Sproul to the facts of this case, we conclude that Defendants have minimum contacts sufficient for specific jurisdiction in New Mexico. We explain. Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants regularly sell their products in New Mexico, advertise in New Mexico, and service their products in New Mexico. Defendants produce New Mexico-targeted advertising, and place their products...