United States District Court, D. Idaho
DEAN A. CARMEN, Plaintiff,
BREVILLE USA, INC., f/k/a METRO/THEBE, INC. d/b/a/HWI USA a California corporation, BREVILLE HOLDINGS USA, INC., a California corporation, BREVILLE GROUP LIMITED a foreign business entity, BREVILLE PTY LIMITED, a foreign business entity, BREVILLE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a foreign business entity, and BED BATH & BEYOND, INC., a New York corporation, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
J. Lodge United States District Judge
before the Court is Defendant Breville PTY Limited's
Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 34.) The parties filed responsive
briefing and the motion is now ripe. Having fully reviewed
the record herein, the Court finds that the facts and legal
arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record.
Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and
because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional
process would not be significantly aided by oral argument,
the Motion shall be decided on the record before this Court
without oral argument. The Court grants Defendant's
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Dean A. Carmen, (“Carmen”) is an individual
residing in Boise, Idaho. (Dkt. 18.) Defendant, Breville PTY
Limited, (“BPL”) is an Australian corporation
with its principal place of business in Australia. (Dkt. 34.)
BPL is primarily engaged in the design, importation,
distribution, and sale of Breville® brand electrical
appliances in Australia. (Dkt. 34.) BPL has a licensing
agreement with Defendant Breville, USA, wherein Breville, USA
has an exclusive license to manufacture, market, and sell the
Breville® brand and design in the United States. (Dkt.
purchased a Breville® 800 ESXL/B1225 (“Subject
Espresso Maker”) from Bed, Bath, and Beyond in Boise,
Idaho on February 9, 2013. (Dkt. 18.) On or about April 1,
2013, in Idaho, Carmen was severely burned when he was
“sprayed with high pressure and ultra-hot steam”
while reconnecting the porta filter back into the Subject
Espresso Maker. (Dkt. 18, 38.) Carmen suffered second and
third degree burns, went into shock and suffered
rhabdomyolysis, which ultimately resulted in his left hand
being amputated. (Dkt. 18, 38.) Carmen has brought this suit
against the Defendants alleging numerous claims including
negligence; breach of warranties; and tortious design and
manufacturing defects. (Dkt. 18.)
October 5, 2015, Carmen filed his Second Amended Complaint in
this matter, which added BPL as a defendant. (Dkt. 18.) BPL
filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 7, 2016 under Rule
12(b)(2) and 12(b)(5). (Dkt. 34.) On October 6, 2016, BPL
moved to withdraw its motion on the basis of Rule 12(b)(5) in
response to Carmen curing the improper service. (Dkt.
48.)The Court now takes up BPL's Motion to
Dismiss on 12(b)(2) grounds.
to dismiss made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2) “are speaking motions and it is appropriate to
look beyond the pleadings to affidavits and other evidence
when considering them.” National Union Fire Ins.
Co. of Pittsburgh v. Aerohawk Aviation, Inc., 259
F.Supp.2d 1096, 1101 (D. Idaho 2003) (citing Data Disc
Inc. v. Systems Technology Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280
(9th Cir. 1977)). “Where a defendant moves to dismiss a
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff
bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is
appropriate.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor
Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Sher
v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990)). Where
“the motion is based on written materials rather than
an evidentiary hearing, ‘the plaintiff need only make a
prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts.'”
Id. “In such cases, ‘we only inquire
into whether [the plaintiff's] pleadings and affidavits
make a prime facie showing of personal
jurisdiction.'” Id. (quoting Caruth v.
International Psychoanalytical Ass'n, 59 F.3d 126,
128 (9th Cir. 1995)). “Although the plaintiff cannot
‘simply rest on the bare allegations of its complaint,
' uncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be
taken as true.” Dole Food Co., Inc. v. Watts,
303 F.3d 1104, 1108 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Amba
Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Jobar Int'l, Inc., 551
F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir. 1977)). “Conflicts between
parties over statements contained in affidavits must be
resolved in the plaintiff's favor.”
Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 800 (citing AT&T
v. Compagnie Bruxelles Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 588 (9th
as here, there is no applicable federal statute governing
personal jurisdiction, the district court applies the law of
that state in which the district court sits.”
Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et
L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1205 (9th Cir. 2006)
(citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1)(A)). “In order for an
Idaho court to exert jurisdiction over an out-of-state
defendant, two criteria must be met; the act giving rise to
the cause of action must fall within the scope of our
long-arm statute and the constitutional standards of due
process must be met.” Saint Alphonsus Regional
Medical Center v. State of Wash., 852 P.2d 491, 494
(Idaho 1992). Idaho Code § 5-514 confers personal
jurisdiction over any “cause of action arising from . .
. [t]he commission of a tortious act within this
[Idaho].” See Idaho Code § 5-514(b).
Under this standard, the negligent act need not take place in
Idaho; all that is required is that the injury is alleged to
have occurred in Idaho. National Union Fire Ins.
Co., 259 F.Supp.2d at 1102. There is no dispute the
accident occurred in Idaho, thus there is at least a prime
facie case that the Idaho long-arm statute confers personal
jurisdiction over BPL. Since the first criteria is met, the
Court next looks to the second criteria, Due Process.
Idaho's long-arm statute, codified in Idaho Code §
5-514, allows a broader application of personal jurisdiction
than the Due Process Clause, the Court need look only to the
Due Process Clause to determine personal jurisdiction. Thus,
under Idaho law, the jurisdictional and federal due process
analyses are the same.” Wells Cargo, Inc. v.
Transport Ins. Co., 676 F.Supp.2d 1114, 1119 (D. Idaho
process requires that a nonresident defendant have sufficient
“minimum contacts” with the forum state such that
the exercise of jurisdiction “does not offend
traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.” Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington,
326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotations and citation
omitted). “[T]he constitutional touchstone of the
determination whether an exercise of personal jurisdiction
comports with due process remains whether the defendant
purposefully established minimum contacts in the forum
State.” Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of
California, Solano Cty., 480 U.S. 102, 108-109 (1987)
(internal quotations and citations omitted).
“Jurisdiction is proper . . . where the contacts
proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that
create a substantial connection with the forum State.”
Id. at 109 (internal quotations and citations
omitted) (emphasis in original).
jurisdiction can be general or specific. Lake v.
Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1420 (9th Cir. 1987). A court may
assert general personal jurisdiction over foreign
corporations “when their affiliations with the State
are so ‘continuous and systematic' as to render
them essentially at home in the forum State.”
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564
U.S. 915, 919 (2011) (citing Int'l Shoe Co., 326
U.S. at 317). In contrast, specific personal jurisdiction is
exercised when a state asserts personal jurisdiction over a
defendant in a lawsuit arising out of or related to the
defendant's contacts with the forum state.
Helicoptores Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall,
466 U.S. 408, 414 n.8 (1984). Specific jurisdiction depends
on the quality and nature of the defendant's contacts
with the forum state in relation to the cause of action.
Lake, 817 F.2d at 1421.
standard for establishing general jurisdiction is
‘fairly high, ' and requires that the
defendant's contacts be of the sort that approximates
physical presence.” Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v.
Augusta Nat. Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000)
(internal citations omitted); see also Brand v. Menlove
Dodge,796 F.2d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 1986); Gates
Learjet Corp. v. Jensen, 743 F.2d 1325, 1331 (9th Cir.
1984). The court considers several factors in determining
general jurisdiction: “whether defendant makes sales,
solicits or engages in business in the state, serves the
state's markets, designates an agent for ...