Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_21-cv-00299/USCOURTS-azd-2_21-cv-00299-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

GPMI Company,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Michelin Lifestyle Limited, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-21-00299-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

Pending before this Court is Michelin North America, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or 

“MNA”) Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for Lack of 

Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 45). For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

This is the second Motion to Dismiss in this matter, this Court having first granted 

dismissal March 3, 2022, with leave to amend. (Doc. 35). GPMI (“Plaintiff”) is a 

corporation registered in, and with its principal place of business in, Arizona. (Doc. 42

at 2). GPMI partners with corporate brands to develop products that GPMI “produces, 

distributes, and sells pursuant to a licensing agreement.” (Doc. 42 at 3). MNA is a 

corporation registered in New York with its principal place of business in South Carolina. 

(Doc. 42 at 2). Michelin Lifestyle Ltd. (“MLL”) is incorporated in the United Kingdom 

and was originally a named defendant in this matter before being terminated pursuant to a 

Motion to Dismiss granted by this Court. (Doc. 42 at 2; Doc. 35).

Case 2:21-cv-00299-GMS Document 54 Filed 09/29/23 Page 1 of 7
- 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

In 2017, Plaintiff and MLL entered into a licensing agreement allowing Plaintiff to 

manufacture and distribute a Michelin-branded automotive product in the United States.

(Doc. 42 at 4). By 2019, the parties had settled on a Tire Sealant Product to be sold with 

the Michelin brand name and designed, manufactured, and distributed from Arizona. 

(Doc. 42 at 4–5). MLL gave final written approval for the product in February 2019. 

(Doc. 42 at 5–6). During the product’s development, GPMI had successfully negotiated 

with Walmart to carry and sell the product nation-wide, including in Arizona. (Doc. 42 

at 6).

Soon after receiving final approval, MLL revoked its approval of the Tire Sealant 

Product. (Doc. 42 at 7). Plaintiff alleges that MNA induced MLL to revoke its approval 

because MNA was “concerned that a Michelin-branded Tire Sealant Product might 

negatively affect MNA’s tire sales . . . by creating the impression that Michelin tires were 

defective.” (Doc. 42 at 7). Plaintiff further alleges that MLL’s revocation and subsequent 

logistical demands were tactics to force GPMI into a new contract more financially 

advantageous for MLL. (Doc. 42 at 11). Plaintiff also claims that because of the revoked 

deal GPMI lost “supplier of choice” status with Walmart, costing GPMI millions of dollars. 

(Doc. 42 at 13).

Plaintiff alleges that MNA knew of GPMI’s relationship with Walmart and was 

aware that its actions had the potential to cause significant damages to GPMI. (Doc. 42 at 

13–14). Further, Plaintiff alleges that MNA directed its interference at GPMI, which it 

knew to be an Arizona corporation. (Doc. 42 at 14). Finally, Plaintiff alleges MNA knew 

the effects of its interference would be felt in Arizona. (Doc. 42 at 14)

Plaintiff filed its original complaint against MLL and MNA in February 2021. 

(Doc. 1). On March 3, 2022, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 35). 

Pursuant to this Court’s order, MLL was terminated as a defendant pursuant to a validforum selection clause. (Doc. 35 at 16). Defendant MNA’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack 

of Personal Jurisdiction was also granted with leave to amend. (Doc. 35 at 16) On August 

4, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint against Defendant MNA with two counts: 

Case 2:21-cv-00299-GMS Document 54 Filed 09/29/23 Page 2 of 7
- 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

27

28

Aiding and Abetting Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Count 

III), Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations (Count IV), and Tortious Interference 

with a Business Expectancy (Count V).

1

(Doc. 42 at 16–20).

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

The plaintiff “bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is appropriate” in 

a motion to dismiss. 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. 2001). “Where, as here, 

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. (quoting Sher, 911 F.2d

at 1361). While the plaintiff “cannot ‘simply rest on the bare allegations of its complaint,” 

id. (quoting Amba Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Jobar Int’l, Inc., 551 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir. 1977)), 

the Court must “take as true all uncontroverted allegations in the complaint.” Glob. 

Commodities Trading Grp., Inc. v. Beneficio de Arroz Choloma, S.A., 972 F.3d 1101, 1106 

(9th Cir. 2020). Allegations that are contradicted by affidavit are not assumed as true, but 

factual disputes between affidavits are resolved in the plaintiff’s favor. CollegeSource, 

Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2011).

This Court applies Arizona law in determining whether it possesses personal 

jurisdiction over a defendant. Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2015). “The 

Arizona long-arm statute provides for personal jurisdiction co-extensive with the limits of 

federal due process.” Doe v. Am. Nat. Red Cross, 112 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir. 1997); 

Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.2(a). For the exercise of personal jurisdiction to adhere to the 

requirements of due process, a defendant must have “minimum contacts” with the forum 

state and exercise of jurisdiction “does not offend traditional notions of fair play and 

substantial justice.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 801 (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. 

Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)).

1 Plaintiff also included Counts I and II against terminated defendant MLL. (Doc. 42 at 14–

16). This Court already terminated this matter as against MLL and did not grant leave to 

amend. (Doc. 35). These Counts are improper and thus disregarded.

Case 2:21-cv-00299-GMS Document 54 Filed 09/29/23 Page 3 of 7
- 4 -

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

There is both general and specific personal jurisdiction. Ford Motor Co. v. Mont.

Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1024 (2021). General jurisdiction applies to 

defendants who are “essentially at home in the forum state” and means that the defendant 

is open to all claims brought in that state’s courts, regardless of where the claims or conduct 

originated. Id. Specific jurisdiction—by contrast—exists only if the suit arises out of or 

relates to the defendant’s specific contacts with the forum. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. 

Superior Ct. of Cal., 582 U.S. 255, 262 (2017). When specific jurisdiction is the sole basis 

for haling an out-of-state defendant into the forum, it must “exist for each claim asserted,” 

Action Embroidery Corp. v. Atl. Embroidery, Inc., 368 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2004), 

and each defendant. Sher, 911 F.2d at 1365.

II. Analysis

Plaintiff concedes that MNA is not a citizen of Arizona and does not otherwise 

allege or argue that MNA is subject to Arizona’s general jurisdiction. (Doc. 42 ¶ 6; 

Doc. 49). As such, this Court must either have specific jurisdiction or none at all. 

A non-resident is subject a court’s specific jurisdiction when (1) the defendant 

purposefully avails itself—or directs its activities towards—the forum state, (2) the claim 

arises out of those forum-related activities, and (3) the exercise of that jurisdiction is 

reasonable. Glob. Commodities, 972 F.3d at 1107 (quoting Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 

802). While there is no rigid distinction between purposeful availment and purposeful 

direction, “purposeful direction is often the better approach for analyzing claims in tort”

and purposeful availment better for claims in contract. Id. at 1107. Since Plaintiff is 

alleging tortious conduct, purposeful direction is the apt test.

a. Purposeful Direction

Under purposeful direction, “a defendant purposefully directed his activities at the 

forum state if he: (1) committed an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, 

(3) causing harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state.” Picot, 

780 F.3d at 1213–14 (citations omitted). But “[t]he proper question is not where the 

plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect but whether the defendant’s conduct 

Case 2:21-cv-00299-GMS Document 54 Filed 09/29/23 Page 4 of 7
- 5 -

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

connects him to the forum in a meaningful way.” Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 290 

(2014). Additionally, a defendant minimum contacts must be “with the forum State itself” 

and not merely with its residents. Id. at 285. Thus, specific jurisdiction cannot be 

established solely by allegations that “a defendant ‘engaged in wrongful conduct targeted 

at a plaintiff whom the defendant knows to be a resident of the forum state.’” Axiom Foods, 

Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Wash. Shoe Co. 

v. A-Z Sporting Goods Inc., 704 F.3d 668, 675 (9th Cir. 2012), abrogated by Walden, 571 

U.S. at 290). A greater connection to the forum state is required. See CE Distrib., LLC v. 

New Sensor Corp., 380 F. 3d 1107, 1111–12 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding plaintiff showed 

sufficient facts for personal jurisdiction based on the defendant’s intention to undermine 

plaintiff’s business ventures in the forum state); Brayton v. Purcell LLP v. Recordon & 

Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding defendant’s copied use of 

plaintiff’s website material put it in direct competition with plaintiff, creating sufficient ties 

for specific jurisdiction); see also Tresona Multimedia LLC v. Legg, No. CV-14-02141-

PHX-DGC, 2015 WL 470228, at *4 (D. Ariz. Feb. 4, 2015).

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges connections to Arizona beyond 

those in Walden. Plaintiff pleads sufficient facts indicating that Defendant inserted itself 

into Plaintiff’s contract with MLL because “it was concerned that a Michelin-branded Tire 

Sealant Product might negatively affect MNA’s tire sales.” (Doc. 42 at 7). MNA’s business 

is substantially based on tire sales, including sales within Arizona. (Doc. 49 at 1–2).

According to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Defendant’s actions were not merely made 

with the knowledge of Plaintiff’s citizenship; they were purposefully directed toward 

shutting down an Arizona-based product that would negatively affect Michelin’s national 

tire sales including such sales in Arizona. This is enough for Plaintiff to satisfy purposeful 

direction. 

b. Forum-Related Activities

After showing purposeful direction, a plaintiff must show the claim arises out of the 

defendant’s forum-related activities. Menken v. Emm, 503 F.3d 1050, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Case 2:21-cv-00299-GMS Document 54 Filed 09/29/23 Page 5 of 7
- 6 -

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

“In determining whether [Plaintiff’s] claims arise out of [Defendant’s] forum-related 

conduct, ‘the Ninth Circuit follows the ‘but for’ test.’” Id. (citing Myers v. Bennett Law 

Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1075 (9th Cir. 2001)).

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint shows a “but for” relationship between Defendant’s 

actions and its forum-related activities. As discussed above, Plaintiff’s complaint 

sufficiently alleges that Defendant took intentional action directed toward Arizona out of 

concern of the effects that Plaintiff’s Arizona-based product would have on Michelin’s 

national tire sales including such sales in Arizona. (Doc. 42 at 7). Defendant’s actions 

prevented Plaintiff from producing or selling its tire sealant, meaning it could no longer 

profit from its contract with MLL or perform on its contract with Walmart. (Doc. 42 at 

7-13). This caused Plaintiff injury. (Doc. 42 at 13–14). This causal link is sufficient to 

satisfy the “but for” test, meaning Plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleges its suit arises 

out of Defendant’s forum related activities. 

c. Reasonableness

Finally, it must be reasonable for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over 

Defendant. Reasonableness is a balancing test based on seven reasonableness factors:

(1) the extent of the defendant's purposeful interjection into the forum state's 

affairs; (2) the burden on the defendant of defending in the forum; (3) the 

extent of conflict with the sovereignty of the defendants' state; (4) the forum 

state's interest in adjudicating the dispute; (5) the most efficient judicial 

resolution of the controversy; (6) the importance of the forum to the 

plaintiff's interest in convenient and effective relief; and (7) the existence of 

an alternative forum.

CE Distrib. LLC, 380 F.3d at 1112 (citations omitted).

The factors in this indicate that it would be reasonable for this Court to exercise 

jurisdiction over Defendant. As shown above, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that Defendant 

purposefully interjected itself into not one, but two contracts performed in Arizona—the 

contracts with MLL and with Walmart. (Doc. 42 at 1–2, 7–13). Furthermore, Defendant 

has already defended other cases in Arizona, indicating that Defendant’s burden by 

Case 2:21-cv-00299-GMS Document 54 Filed 09/29/23 Page 6 of 7
- 7 -

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

defending another case in Arizona is not substantial enough to challenge specific 

jurisdiction. (Doc. 42 at 3). As it stands, there is no indication that Defendant’s forum 

state has indicated an interest in this dispute, while Arizona does possess such an interest 

as both Plaintiff and Defendant regularly conduct business within Arizona. (Doc. 42 at 2–

3). Next, considering that the contracts were performed in Arizona, Arizona is the most

convenient and efficient forum for this case. (Doc. 42 at 1–2, 7–13) Finally, while 

Defendant’s home-states of New York and South Carolina are potential alternative forums, 

the weight of this single factor in favor of Defendant is not enough to counter the 

cumulative weight of the remaining factors. (Doc. 42 at 2). In sum, it is reasonable for 

this Court to exercise specific jurisdiction over Defendant.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 

Rule 12(b)(2) for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 45) is DENIED.

Dated this 29th day of September, 2023.

Case 2:21-cv-00299-GMS Document 54 Filed 09/29/23 Page 7 of 7