Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_24-cv-00008/USCOURTS-ared-3_24-cv-00008-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Wrongful Death

---

IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

ADVOCACY TRUST, LLC, as Special 

Administrator of the Estate and on behalf 

of the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of 

Jeffrey William McKenzie, Deceased 

v. No. 3:24-cv-8-DPM 

BLM GROUP USA CORPORATION, 

f/k/a BLM-ADIGE USA CORP; BLM 

S.P.A.; and JOHN DOES 1-10 

ORDER 

PLAINTIFF 

DEFENDANTS 

A tube-bending machine crushed Jeffrey McKenzie at his job in 

Batesville, Arkansas. He was rushed to a local emergency room, then 

flown to Little Rock. He died mid-flight. Advocacy Trust, LLC 

is the special administrator of his estate. It brings various tort claims 

against the machine's Italian manufacturer, BLM S.p.A., and American 

distributor, BLM Group USA Corporation. (For ease, the Court will 

refer to them as "BLM Italy" and "BLM USA.") BLM Italy moves 

to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Advocacy Trust resists 

dismissal and seeks to conduct some jurisdictional discovery. 

BLM USA, the distributor, doesn't challenge this Court's jurisdiction 

over it. 

Case 3:24-cv-00008-DPM Document 27 Filed 01/02/25 Page 1 of 5
* 

Arkansas's long-arm statute reaches as far as the Due Process 

Clause allows. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-4-l0l(B). The parties agree there's 

no general jurisdiction. Doc. 18 at 2. BLM Italy- an Italian corporation 

with its principal place of business in Italy-isn't at home in Arkansas. 

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 592 U.S. 351, 

358-59 (2021). So the familiar question arises: Is there specific personal 

jurisdiction over BLM Italy, such that it should reasonably expect to be 

haled into this Court for this accident? World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. 

Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291-94 (1980). Viewing the record in the light 

most favorable to Advocacy Trust, the answer is no. Dakota Industries, 

Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 946 F.2d 1384, 1387 (8th Cir. 1991). 

The inquiry focuses on the relationship between the defendant, 

the forum, and the litigation. Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283-84 (2014). 

Here are the relevant jurisdictional facts. In 2018, BLM Italy shipped a 

tube-bending machine - the "L Bender" - to BLM USA' s facilities in 

Michigan. (BLM USA is a Michigan corporation with its principal place 

of business in Michigan.) BLM USA kept that machine as "stock 

product" for two years. Doc. 13-1 at 2. In 2020, BLM USA sold the 

L Bender to McKenzie's employer, Intimidator, LLC. BLM USA's 

employees installed the L Bender at Intimidator' s facility in Arkansas. 

That machine fatally injured McKenzie in February 2022. 

-2-

Case 3:24-cv-00008-DPM Document 27 Filed 01/02/25 Page 2 of 5
BLM Italy's relationship with BLM USA is the core of Advocacy 

Trust's personal jurisdiction argument. Advocacy Trust alleges the 

two companies are "essentially one and the same entity." Doc. 1 at 4. 

BLM Italy denies this, offering the affidavit of its HR Administration 

Manager, Flavia Borgonovo. She explained the corporate relationship: 

"BLM Italy owns 100% of BLM Group (UK) LTD, which owns 100% of 

BLM USA." Doc. 13-1 at 2. There is no overlap between the companies' 

"officers, directors, employees, agents, [or] representatives." Ibid. 

She also described the business relationship: "BLM USA is BLM Italy's 

exclusive distributor for the entire United States market-not just 

Arkansas." Doc. 13-1 at 2 (emphasis removed). Accordingly, she says, 

"BLM Italy did not know the L Bender was being sent to Arkansas by 

BLM USA, did not contract with Intimidator, and did not provide any 

warranty to Intimidator for the L Bender at issue." Ibid. Advocacy Trust 

offers no contrary proof. 

The facts of record-exclusive, nationwide distribution through a 

sub-subsidiary- do not establish specific jurisdiction over BLM Italy. 

Doc. 18 at 2-3. First, BLM Italy's distribution scheme shows its intent to 

serve the national market; it does not show purposeful availment of 

Arkansas's laws and protections. J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 

564 U.S. 873, 886 (2011) (plurality opinion); see also Gould v. P.T. 

Krakatau Steel, 957 F.2d 573,576 (8th Cir. 1992). Second, the companies' 

parent/ subsidiary/ subsidiary relationship does not, on this record, 

-3-

Case 3:24-cv-00008-DPM Document 27 Filed 01/02/25 Page 3 of 5
suggest that BLM USA was BLM Italy's alter ego. Epps v. Stewart 

Information Services Corp., 327 F.3d 642, 648-49 (8th Cir. 2003). Absent 

such a showing, BLM USA' s suit-related contacts cannot be imputed 

to BLM Italy. Steinbuch v. Cutler, 518 F.3d 580,589 (8th Cir. 2008). 

Advocacy Trust's reliance on Barone v. Rich Bros. Interstate Display 

Fireworks, Co., 25 F.3d 610 (8th Cir. 1994), and Clune v. Alimak AB, 

233 F.3d 538 (8th Cir. 2000), is misplaced. That precedent makes plain 

that specific personal jurisdiction can arise out of or relate to a product 

that moves in the stream of commerce. But the stream is a metaphor; 

it is not a separate jurisdictional theory. McIntyre, 564 U.S. at 881-82. 

This Court must focus on the relationship between BLM Italy, 

Arkansas, and this case. Walden, 571 U.S. at 283-84. All material 

circumstances considered, Myers v. Casino Queen, Inc., 689 F.3d 904, 

911 (8th Cir. 2012), Advocacy Trust has not made a prima facie case -

either under a stream-of-commerce theory or an agency theory-that 

BLM Italy has minimum contacts with Arkansas. 

* 

Last, the Court declines Advocacy Trust's request to conduct 

jurisdictional discovery. Its assertions about BLM Italy's control over 

BLM USA are speculative and conclusory. Doc. 24 at 6. And much of 

the information it seeks has already been covered in Borgonovo's 

detailed affidavit. Viasystems, Inc. v. EBM-Papst St. Georgen GmbH & 

Co., KG, 646 F.3d 589, 598 (8th Cir. 2011). 

-4-

Case 3:24-cv-00008-DPM Document 27 Filed 01/02/25 Page 4 of 5
* * * 

Motion to dismiss, Doc. 13, granted. The claims against BLM Italy 

are dismissed without prejudice; and BLM Italy is dismissed as a 

defendant. Motion for jurisdictional discovery, Doc. 23, denied. 

So Ordered. 

(/ 

D.P. Marshall Jr. 

United States District Judge 

-5-

Case 3:24-cv-00008-DPM Document 27 Filed 01/02/25 Page 5 of 5