Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_15-cv-00207/USCOURTS-ared-3_15-cv-00207-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

JONESBORO DIVISION

KEESHA STRINGER PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 3:14-cv-00151 KGB

SMITH TRANSPORTATION, INC.

and JOHNIE STEIN DEFENDANTS

v.

ANTONIO PATTERSON THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT

ANTONIO PATTERSON PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 3:15-cv-00207 KGB

JOHN H. STEIN JR., LARRY W. WINKLER,

and SMITH TRANSPORTATION, INC. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On August 27, 2015, the Court entered an Order consolidating Antonio Patterson v. John 

H. Stein, et al., Case No. 3:15-CV-00207-JLH with this action. Before these cases were 

consolidated, separate defendant Larry W. Winkler, who was not named as a defendant in this 

case prior to consolidation, filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff Antonio Patterson’s claims against 

him. Antonio Patterson v. John H. Stein, et al., Case No. 3:15-CV-00207-JLH (Dkt. No. 3). His 

motion remains pending at this time. Mr. Patterson did not respond to Mr. Winkler’s motion, 

and the time to do so has passed. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion to 

dismiss.

I. Background

The following alleged facts are taken from Mr. Patterson’s complaint, which was filed 

prior to the consolidation of these cases. Antonio Patterson v. John H. Stein, et al., Case No. 

Case 3:15-cv-00207-KGB Document 15 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 7
2

3:15-CV-00207-JLH (Dkt. No. 2). This case arises out of a traffic accident that occurred on or 

around December 6, 2013. Mr. Patterson claims that he was a passenger in a car that came to a 

rest on Highway 55 North because of ice on the road. According to Mr. Patterson, the car was 

hit by a 2009 Freightliner Cascadia driven by separate defendant John H. Stein, Jr., who was 

acting in the course of his employment by separate defendant Smith Transportation, Inc. Mr. 

Patterson, who was outside of the car when the accident occurred, alleges that he was injured 

when he had to throw himself out of the way to avoid the collision.

Mr. Patterson seeks damages from Mr. Stein, Mr. Winkler, and Smith Transportation, 

Inc. He claims that Mr. Winkler is a resident and citizen of Missouri, and that he owned the 

2009 Freightliner Cascadia that was involved in the accident. Mr. Patterson does not allege that 

Mr. Winkler is affiliated with Smith Transportation, and he does not include any allegations 

regarding the relationship between Mr. Winkler and Mr. Stein, other than that Mr. Winkler 

owned the vehicle that Mr. Stein was driving when the accident occurred. He does not claim that 

Mr. Winkler has any additional contacts with the state of Arkansas, other than through his 

ownership of the 2009 Freightliner Cascadia.

II. Standard of Review

Mr. Winkler moves to dismiss Mr. Patterson’s complaint against him pursuant to Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). To survive a 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack 

of personal jurisdiction, “a plaintiff must plead ‘sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference 

that the defendant[ ] can be subjected to jurisdiction within the state.’” Creative Calling Sols., 

Inc. v. LF Beauty Ltd., 799 F.3d 975, 979 (8th Cir. 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting K–V

Pharm. Co. v. J. Uriach & CIA, S.A., 648 F.3d 588, 591–92 (8th Cir.2011)). As for a motion to 

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 

Case 3:15-cv-00207-KGB Document 15 Filed 03/16/16 Page 2 of 7
3

true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially 

plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678.

(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “While a complaint attacked by a [Federal] Rule [of Civil 

Procedure] 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s 

obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and 

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (alteration in original) (citations omitted). “[T]he complaint must 

contain facts which state a claim as a matter of law and must not be conclusory.” Briehl v. 

General Motors Corp., 172 F.3d 623, 627 (8th Cir. 1999). “When ruling on a motion to dismiss, 

the district court must accept the allegations contained in the complaint as true and all reasonable 

inferences from the complaint must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party.” Young v. City of 

St. Charles, 244 F.3d 623, 627 (8th Cir. 2001).

III. Discussion

Mr. Winkler argues that Mr. Johnson failed to include sufficient factual allegations in his 

complaint to state a claim against him or to establish that this Court has personal jurisdiction 

over him.

A. Failure To State A Claim

In his complaint, Mr. Johnson alleges that Mr. Winkler is liable for his injuries because 

he owned the 2009 Freightliner Cascadia involved in the accident. Mr. Winkler argues that 

alleging mere ownership of the vehicle is not enough to state a valid claim, and that “in order to 

hold Winkler liable for the accident, Plaintiff would at least have to allege that some relationship

Case 3:15-cv-00207-KGB Document 15 Filed 03/16/16 Page 3 of 7
4

existed between Winkler and Stein such that Winkler could be held vicariously liable for the

actions of Stein.” Antonio Patterson v. John H. Stein, et al., Case No. 3:15-CV-00207-JLH (Dkt. 

No. 4, at 3). As Mr. Patterson’s complaint does not include any factual allegations pertaining to 

the relationship between Mr. Winkler and Mr. Stein, Mr. Winkler argues that he “has failed to 

provide any factual basis to show that Winkler owed a duty; how such duty was breached; and 

how any such breach is proximately related to Plaintiff’s damages.” Antonio Patterson v. John 

H. Stein, et al., Case No. 3:15-CV-00207-JLH (Dkt. No. 4, at 3).

The Court finds that Mr. Patterson failed to state a claim against Mr. Winkler. Mr. 

Patterson alleges that Mr. Winkler owned the vehicle involved in the accident causing his 

injuries. Even if that allegation is true, this fact alone does not establish a claim for relief against 

him. See Brown v. Truck Connections Int'l, Inc., 526 F. Supp. 2d 920, 922-23 (E.D. Ark. 2007)

(finding under Arkansas law that the owner of a commercial vehicle was not liable for injuries 

resulting from an accident involving the vehicle, because the driver was not an employee of the 

vehicle owner). Mr. Patterson failed to allege that Mr. Winkler employed Mr. Stein, permitted 

him to use the vehicle, or even knew that Mr. Stein would be driving the vehicle. As mere 

ownership of a vehicle does not establish liability, and Mr. Patterson’s claims against Mr. 

Winkler rely solely on his alleged ownership of the 2009 Freightliner Cascadia, the Court finds 

that he failed to state a claim against Mr. Winkler.

B. Failure To Establish Personal Jurisdiction

Mr. Winkler also argues that Mr. Patterson’s claims against him should be dismissed for 

lack of personal jurisdiction because the complaint does not contain sufficient facts that would 

support a reasonable inference that Mr. Winkler can be subjected to jurisdiction within Arkansas. 

Antonio Patterson v. John H. Stein, et al., Case No. 3:15-CV-00207-JLH (Dkt. No. 4, at 3-4).

Case 3:15-cv-00207-KGB Document 15 Filed 03/16/16 Page 4 of 7
5

Mr. Patterson claims that Mr. Winkler is a resident and citizen of Missouri and that he owned the 

truck involved in the accident that allegedly caused Mr. Patterson’s injuries. The accident 

occurred in Arkansas. Mr. Patterson does not make any allegations regarding any other 

connection between Mr. Winkler and Arkansas.

A federal court may exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant only to the extent 

permitted by the forum state’s long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment. Bell Paper Box, Inc. v. U.S. Kids., Inc., 22 F.3d 816, 818 (8th Cir. 1994). The 

Arkansas long-arm statute confers jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted by the Due Process 

Clause. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-4-101(B); Mountaire Feeds, Inc. v. Argo Impex, S. A., 677 F.2d 

651, 653 (8th Cir. 1982). Thus, the Court’s only inquiry here is whether the Due Process Clause 

permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Mr. Winkler. 

The Due Process Clause requires that, before a court can exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, there must be sufficient “minimum contacts” between that defendant and the 

forum state such that “maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and 

substantial justice.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291-92 (1980) 

(quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). Sufficient minimum contacts exist when the “defendant’s conduct and 

connection with the forum state are such that [it] should reasonably anticipate being haled into 

court there.” Id. at 297. The non-resident defendant must have purposefully directed its 

activities at forum residents or “purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting 

activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its law.” Hanson 

v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253-54 (1958); Kulko v. Sup. Ct., 436 U.S. 84, 93-94 (1978). The 

Case 3:15-cv-00207-KGB Document 15 Filed 03/16/16 Page 5 of 7
6

purposeful availment requirement assures that a non-resident will be aware that it is subject to 

suit in the forum state. World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S at 297.

The Eighth Circuit has identified five factors with which to measure minimum contacts: 

“(1) the nature and quality of the contacts with the forum state; (2) the quantity of the contacts 

with the forum; (3) the relation of the cause of action to these contacts; (4) the interest of the 

forum state in providing a forum for its residents; and (5) the convenience of the parties.” Digitel Holdings v. Proteq Telecoms., 89 F.3d 519, 522-23 (8th Cir. 1996). The first three factors are 

of “primary importance.” Id. With respect to the third factor, the Eighth Circuit distinguishes 

between specific jurisdiction and general jurisdiction. Bell Paper Box, 22 F.3d at 819. “A state 

may exercise general jurisdiction if a defendant has carried on in the forum state a continuous 

and systematic, even if limited, part of its general business; in such circumstances the alleged 

injury need not have any connection with the forum state.” Steinbuch v. Cutler, 518 F.3d 580, 

586 (8th Cir. 2008). Specific jurisdiction is proper “only if the injury giving rise to the lawsuit 

occurred within or had some connection to the forum state, meaning that the defendant purposely 

directed its activities at the forum state and the claim arose out of or relates to those activities.” 

Id. (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985)).

The Court finds that Mr. Patterson failed to allege sufficient facts establishing that this 

Court has personal jurisdiction over Mr. Winkler. It is clear that the complaint fails to establish 

that Mr. Winkler’s contacts with Arkansas are so “continuous and systematic” that the Court has 

general jurisdiction over him; the accident at issue is the only alleged contact between Mr. 

Winkler and the state. The complaint also fails to establish that the Court has specific 

jurisdiction over him. While the injury giving rise to this action “occurred within or had some 

connection to” Arkansas, there is no indication that Mr. Winkler “purposely directed [his] 

Case 3:15-cv-00207-KGB Document 15 Filed 03/16/16 Page 6 of 7
7

activities” to the state. Steinbuch, 518 F.3d at 586. “‘For a State to exercise jurisdiction 

consistent with due process, the defendant's suit-related conduct must create a substantial 

connection with the forum State.’ This means that ‘the relationship must arise out of contacts 

that the defendant himself creates with the forum State.’” Fastpath, Inc. v. Arbela Techs. Corp.,

760 F.3d 816, 821 (8th Cir. 2014) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted) (quoting Walden v. 

Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1122 (2014)). Mr. Patterson does not allege that Mr. Winkler 

did anything to establish contacts with the state of Arkansas. The only connection between Mr. 

Winkler and the state appearing in Mr. Winkler’s complaint is his ownership of a truck driven by 

Mr. Stein, a third party. That connection is not enough to establish personal jurisdiction. See 

Grandstaff v. Hiner Equip., L.L.C., 56 F. Supp. 3d 1003, 1012 (S.D. Iowa 2014) (“Merely 

retaining title to a trailer that was drawn through Iowa solely at the direction of a third party, 

without more, is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under notions of fair play and 

substantial justice.”).

IV. Conclusion

The Court finds that Mr. Patterson failed to state a claim against Mr. Winkler and failed 

to allege sufficient facts establishing that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Mr. Winkler. 

Therefore, the Court grants Mr. Winkler’s motion to dismiss Mr. Patterson’s claims against him.

Antonio Patterson v. John H. Stein, et al., Case No. 3:15-CV-00207-JLH (Dkt. No. 3). 

So ordered this the 16th day of March, 2016.

________________________________

Kristine G. Baker

United States District Judge

___________________________

Kristine G. Baker

Case 3:15-cv-00207-KGB Document 15 Filed 03/16/16 Page 7 of 7