Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01118/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01118-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORE PRODUCTS, INC.; )

formerly known as ZINKIN )

AVIATION, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

DOVE AIR, INC., a )

corporation, AVIATION )

SERVICES, INC., a )

corporation, JOSEPH DUNCAN, )

an individual, WAYNE O’BERG, )

an individual, )

 )

Defendants. )

)

) 

No. CV-F-05-1118 REC DLB

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS

AND/OR SUPPLEMENTAL

DECLARATIONS REGARDING

PURPOSEFUL DIRECTION. 

 

On November 21, 2005, the Court heard the motion to dismiss

for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Defendants Aviation

Services Unlimited, Inc., sued as Aviation Services, Inc., and

Wayne O’Berg (collectively “Defendants”).

The purposeful availment prong of specific personal

jurisdiction analysis is satisfied where the nonresident

defendant has “purposely availed itself of the privilege of

conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 58 Filed 11/22/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

benefits and protections of its laws” or has purposefully

directed its activities toward the forum. Burger King, 471 U.S.

at 475; Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir.

2002). Courts use the phrase “purposeful availment” as shorthand

to refer to both purposeful availment and purposeful direction. 

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th

Cir. 2004). Courts generally use a purposeful availment analysis

for suits sounding in contract and purposeful direction analysis

for suits sounding in tort. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802.

The parties have not discussed, in their briefs or at oral

argument, whether the intentional torts that Plaintiff alleges

provide the basis for personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

claims for intentional misrepresentation and conversion on a

purposeful direction theory. See Dole, 303 F.3d at 1111-15

(applying the three-part “effects” test). In its Third Cause of

Action, for intentional misrepresentation, Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant intentionally misrepresented the airworthiness of the

aircraft and “intended to deceive the Plaintiff” to induce it to

complete the purchase. Compl. at 14. Plaintiff’s Eighth Cause

of Action, for conversion, features an allegation that Defendants

“induced and enticed plaintiff to deliver the aircraft to its

facility in Oklahoma City under specified terms and conditions in

which said defendants agreed to release the aircraft once

plaintiff had paid for its portion of the cosmetic changes to the

aircraft.” Compl. at 21. 

The Court is concerned with whether these alleged

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 58 Filed 11/22/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

intentional acts establish that Defendants have purposefully

directed an act or acts toward the forum state to satisfy the

“purposeful availment” prong with respect to its claims for

intentional misrepresentation and conversion. 

ACCORDINGLY, the parties shall submit supplemental

briefs and/or declarations as to whether, under the “effects”

test, Defendants have purposefully directed an act or acts toward

the forum such that personal jurisdiction over them does not

violate their constitutional due process rights. Plaintiff’s

supplemental brief shall be filed on or before Monday, December

5, 2005. The response of Defendants ASU and Mr. O’Berg shall be

filed on or before December 19, 2005. All further proceedings

will be by order of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

810ha4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 58 Filed 11/22/05 Page 3 of 3