Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03258/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03258-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHELLEY R. ROBINSON; and ELIZAVETA

M. HUNSINGER, by and through her

Conservator IVAN J. HUNSINGER,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG; DAIMLERCHRYSLER

MOTORS COMPANY LLC; DAIMLERCHRYSLER

CORPORATION; and DOES ONE through

FIFTY, inclusive,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 07-3258 SC

ORDER DENYING

SPECIALLY APPEARING

DEFENDANT DAIMLER

AG'S MOTION TO

DISMISS FOR LACK OF

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Daimler AG ("Daimler") brings this Motion to

Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). See Docket No. 17. Plaintiffs Shelley

Robinson and Elizaveta Hunsinger ("Plaintiffs") opposed the

motion, and Daimler replied. See Docket Nos. 21, 25. The parties

have submitted numerous declarations and documentary exhibits in

support of their positions. Having reviewed all of the parties'

submissions, the Court hereby DENIES Daimler's motion for the

reasons set forth below.

II. DISCUSSION

At this juncture, it is unclear to the Court whether the

parties that briefed this motion are even litigating the same

Case 3:07-cv-03258-SC Document 27 Filed 01/11/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

lawsuit. A comparison of their factual summaries is illuminating.

In what appears to the Court to be the only Complaint,

Plaintiffs allege that the 1998 Jeep Cherokee in which they were

traveling was caused to lose control and roll over on a road in

Idaho. See Notice of Removal, Docket No. 1, Ex. B ("Complaint") ¶

8. According to the Complaint, the accident took place on May 25,

2005. Id. Plaintiffs allege that certain components of the

vehicle, including the roof, roof supports, and restraints, failed

during this accident as a result of flaws in their design and

manufacture. Id. ¶¶ 10, 11, 17, 18. This failure allegedly

resulted in severe and catastrophic injuries to Plaintiffs. See,

e.g., id. ¶¶ 12, 19. Plaintiffs brought this suit against

DaimlerChrysler AG, DaimlerChrysler Motors Company LLC, and

DaimlerChrysler Corporation, alleging causes of action for

negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty. See id.

Plaintiffs filed the suit in the Contra Costa County Superior

Court on May 9, 2007, and Defendants removed it to this Court on

June 20, 2007. See Notice of Removal; Compl. The parties' Joint

Case Management Statement suggests the same general factual

background. See Joint Case Mgmt. Statement, Docket No. 20.

By contrast, Daimler's brief appears to ask the Court to

dismiss a different case entirely. Daimler's brief addresses a

November 27, 2003 accident in Fairfield, California. See Def.'s

Mem. of P & A in Support of Mot. to Dismiss, Docket No. 11

("Daimler Mem."), at 2. That accident, unlike the one underlying

Plaintiffs' Complaint, apparently involved another vehicle. Id.

Further, the complaint which Daimler asks the Court to dismiss was

Case 3:07-cv-03258-SC Document 27 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1Plaintiffs' counsel could have and should have drawn the

Court's and Daimler's attention to this. Whether or not Daimler's

legal arguments may be appropriate if applied to the instant facts

is irrelevant. The Court must rule on the record before it, and

the parties are responsible for creation of that record. 

This brief is not the only flaw in the record. For example,

in the Answer, the other Defendants stated that DaimlerChrysler AG

(Daimler's predecessor) had not been served. In the Joint Case

Management Statement, the parties stated that all named Defendants

had been served. Daimler says in its brief that it had recently

been served pursuant to the Hague Convention. There is no proof of

this service on the record.

The Court encourages counsel to review both the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Northern

District of California. The parties disregard said rules at their

peril. The Court further encourages counsel to review their own

papers prior to submission, so as to be sure they are filing papers

in the correct lawsuit. 

3

filed in the State Court in November 2005, and amended in October

2006. Id. The complaint Daimler addresses alleges problems with

the seat, seat back, and restraint system, but not the roof, as

Plaintiffs' Complaint does. Id. 

In short, Daimler is asking the Court to dismiss a lawsuit

other than the one presently before the Court.1 This Court

presides over the Plaintiffs' lawsuit. Daimler or any other

Defendant seeking to dismiss the present action would be well

advised to focus any further submissions on the facts alleged in

the Complaint.

The Court DENIES Daimler's motion without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 10, 2008

 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-03258-SC Document 27 Filed 01/11/08 Page 3 of 3