Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01489/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01489-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Angel Jet Services, LLC, individually and

as assignee of Jane Doe, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Giant Eagle, Inc., individually and as Plan

Administrator of Giant Eagle Group

Health Insurance; Giant Eagle Group

Health Insurance, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-01489-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal

Jurisdiction (Dkt.#15). Defendants contend that they lack sufficient minimum contacts to

be subject to suit in Arizona. (Dkt.#15) Plaintiff opposes this motion by contending that

because Plaintiff’s claim is based on ERISA, as long as Defendants have sufficient contacts

with the United States, suit may be brought without regard to minimum contacts with the

forum state. (Dkt. #19 at 9) Defendants reply by arguing that there is no evidence of the

alleged assignment that would theoretically confer standing upon Angel Jet to assert the

rights of the insured. (Dkt.#21) Specifically, Defendants explain that “although Angel Jet

has alleged that it obtained a written assignment from Mrs. Seibel, both in the Complaint and

in the Declaration of Jeremy Freer, it did not attach it to the Complaint or the Declaration.

Moreover, despite Giant Eagle’s request, Angel Jet has refused to produce the assignment

Case 2:09-cv-01489-SRB Document 22 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

document to Giant Eagle.” (Dkt.#21 at 3) Whether an assignment exists bears directly on

Angel Jet’s standing to assert an ERISA claim, which in turn, bears directly on the Court’s

analysis of the requirements for personal jurisdiction over Defendants. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED directing Angel Jet to produce the alleged assignment

to Defendants forthwith. Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Exp. Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430

n.24 (9th Cir. 1977) (explaining that “a court may allow discovery to aid in determining

whether it has in personam or subject matter jurisdiction”).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the parties to meet and confer and to jointly

submit a statement regarding their respective positions regarding the validity of the alleged

assignment no later than March 8, 2010. 

DATED this 3rd day of March, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01489-SRB Document 22 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 2