Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00115/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00115-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
C. Overaa & Co.
Counter-claimant
Carbonite Filter Corporation
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CARBONITE FILTER :

CORPORATION,

:

Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-1238 

:

v

: (JUDGE MANNION)

C. OVERAA & CO.,

:

Defendant 

MEMORANDUM

Presently before the court is a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant

C. Overaa & Co. (“Overaa”) made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(2) and

12(b)(6). (Doc. 12). The motion argues that the complaint, which plaintiff

Carbonite Filter Corporation (“Carbonite”) filed, should be dismissed for lack

of general and specific personal jurisdiction over Overaa, a California

company. The motion also argues that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any

cognizable claims against Overaa. Because the court does not have general

or specific personal jurisdiction over Overaa, the motion will be GRANTED

under Rule 12(b)(2), and Carbon’s complaint against Overaa will be

DISMISSED.

I. BACKGROUND1

1The court must accept Carbonite’s allegations in its complaint as true

and resolve disputed facts in favor of Carbonite in considering Overaa’s

Case 3:19-cv-00115-SK Document 27 Filed 11/07/18 Page 1 of 18
Carbonite is a Pennsylvania company which is located in Schuylkill

County, and it processes, packages and sells Pennsylvania anthracite coal

for use as filter media in water treatment plants. Overaa is a California

construction company which uses coal in water treatment plant construction

projects. The City of Sacramento, California, owned a water treatment plant

and it contracted Overaa to rehabilitate the plant by installing filters to wash

and clean the water for the City, i.e., the Sacramento water treatment plant

construction project (the “Project”). Carbonfilt, LLC, (“Carbonfilt”), is a Florida

company that Overaa used to supply anthracite coal for the Project. Carbonite

alleges that even though Carbonfilt was not an acceptable supplier for the

anthracite coal according to the specifications for the Project, Overaa decided

to use Carbonfilt to obtain 629 tons of anthracite coal for the Project.

On June 16, 2015, Carbonite was directed by Carbonfilt to provide a

sample of its manufactured filter anthracite coal to Overaa to determine if it

was acceptable for use in the Project. Carbonite then sent the sample to

Overaa and Overaa advised that the sample was acceptable. On July 29,

2015, Carbonite sent another anthracite coal sample (Lot 2) for Overaa to

test, and subsequently, Overaa advised Carbonfilt that the Lot 2 sample met

the filter media requirements for the Project.

In August of 2015, Sacramento retained Kleinfelder, a media testing

company, to test the bulk filter media sand and anthracite coal that Carbonite

motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under to Fed.R.Civ.Pro.

12(b)(2). Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 368 (3d Cir. 2002).

2

Case 3:19-cv-00115-SK Document 27 Filed 11/07/18 Page 2 of 18
had supplied. Carbonite alleges that Kleinfelder was not a credentialed testing

laboratory and that it used improper testing protocols to test the sand and

anthracite. Kleinfelder determined that the sand and anthracite filter media

products contained deviations from the Project’s specifications. Thereafter,

the products were tested by six other testing laboratories which yielded

inconsistent results.

Carbonfilt then advised Overaa that it was turning over the quality

issues to the media manufactures, including Carbonite. Overaa then began

communicating with Carbonite, either directly or via carbon copy, regarding

its anthracite coal and the Project’s requirements. It was finally decided that

Carbonite’s anthracite coal was in compliance with the Project’s requirements

and Overaa accepted and used all 629 tons of Carbonite’s coal and, installed

the coal in the water treatment plant filter system. 

On June 19, 2018, Carbonite filed a complaint, (Doc. 1), which

essentially alleged that it had performed work as a sub-contractor for the

construction of the water treatment facility in Sacramento, i.e., the Project, for

which Overaa was the general contractor. Carbonite alleges that Overaa

owes it money for the anthracite coal it supplied and was used for the Project.

On August 24, 2018, Overaa filed its motion to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

(Doc. 12). Overaa’s motion has been fully briefed and exhibits were filed.

3

Case 3:19-cv-00115-SK Document 27 Filed 11/07/18 Page 3 of 18
II. STANDARD2

Rule 12(b)(2) provides for the dismissal of a complaint if the plaintiff fails

to establish that the court has personal jurisdiction over a party. Fed.R.

Civ.P.12(b)(2). Rule 12(b)(3) in conjunction with 28 U.S.C. §1391, requires

the court to dismiss the case if the plaintiff fails to show that the district in

which the suit is brought is the proper venue. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3).

Rule 12(b)(2) requires the court to accept the truth of factual allegations

in the complaint relating to jurisdiction and the reasonable inferences that flow

therefrom unless the moving party produces evidence tending to contradict

the existence of jurisdiction. In re Chocolate ConfectionaryAntitrust Litigation,

674 F.Supp.2d 580, 595 (M.D.Pa. 2009). In other words, a party may rely

entirely on allegations unless and until the moving party presents the court

with actual evidence to the contrary. Id.; Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384

F.3d 93, 97 (3d Cir. 2004) (“when the court does not hold an evidentiary

hearing on the motion to dismiss, . . . the plaintiff is entitled to have its

allegations taken as true and all factual disputes drawn in its favor.”); but see,

e.g., Rodi v. S. New Eng. Sch. of Law, 255 F.Supp.2d 346, 348 (D.N.J. 2003)

(“the plaintiff may not rely on the pleadings, but rather must introduce sworn

affidavits or other competent evidence.”).

If the moving party does submit competent evidence refuting jurisdiction,

2Although Overaa’s motion to dismiss is also brought pursuant to the

provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the court does not include the Rule

12(b)(6) standard since it will grant Overaa’s motion to dismiss for lack of

personal jurisdiction under to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(2).

4

Case 3:19-cv-00115-SK Document 27 Filed 11/07/18 Page 4 of 18
the non-moving party shoulders the burden of establishing, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that the court has jurisdiction over the matter.

In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation, 674 F.Supp.2d at 595

(“Once these allegations are contradicted by an opposing affidavit, however,

plaintiffs must present similar evidence in support of personal jurisdiction.”).

At this point, the plaintiff may not rely on bare pleadings but must support

those pleadings with “actual proofs, not mere allegations.” Id. (quoting

Patterson by Patterson v. FBI, 893 F.2d 595, 603-04 (3d Cir. 1990)). As such,

"although the burden of persuasion always lies with the non-moving party, the

burden of production rests initially with the party moving for dismissal under

Rule 12(b)(2).” Id. at 595, n. 21.

Additionally, “[a] motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)

‘is inherently a matter which requires resolution of factual issues outside the

pleadings, i.e., whether in personam jurisdiction actually lies.’” Farber v.

Tennant Truck Lines, Inc., 84 F.Supp.3d 421, 426 (E.D.Pa. 2015) (citation

omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Since jurisdiction is a threshold issue, the court will first address

Overaa’s contention that Carbonite’s complaint should be dismissed under

Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(2) because Overaa is not subject to the court’s

jurisdiction. Both Overaa and Carbonite have submitted evidence regarding

the issue of whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Overaa. Thus,

5

Case 3:19-cv-00115-SK Document 27 Filed 11/07/18 Page 5 of 18
Carbonite cannot simply rely on bare pleadings in its complaint to establish

that the court has personal jurisdiction over Overaa.

“A federal district court may assert personal jurisdiction over a

nonresident of the state in which the court sits to the extent authorized by the

law of that state.” Farber, 84 F.Supp.3d at 426 (citation omitted). “The

Pennsylvania [long-arm] statute [42 Pa.Cons.Stat. §5322(b)] permits the

courts of that state to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident

defendants to the constitutional limits of the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment.” Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, Nat. Ass’n v. Farino, 960

F.2d 1217, 1221 (3d Cir. 1992). “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the Constitution permits personal jurisdiction so long as the

nonresident defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum such that

maintenance of the suit does not offend “‘traditional notions of fair play and

substantial justice.’” Farber, 84 F.Supp.3d at 426 (citations omitted).

“There are two types of personal jurisdiction: general jurisdiction and

specific jurisdiction.” Plumbers’ Local Union No. 690 Health Plan v. Apotex

Corp., 2017 WL 3129147, *4 (E.D.Pa. July 24, 2017) (citation omitted). “A

Plaintiff may demonstrate that a court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction is

proper, by establishing that a court has either general jurisdiction or specific

jurisdiction over the defendant, or by establishing that the defendant has

consented to jurisdiction.” Id. (citation omitted). There is no claim in this case

that Overaa has consented to the jurisdiction of this court. Rather, Overaa

contends that neither general nor specific personal jurisdiction exists over it.

6

Case 3:19-cv-00115-SK Document 27 Filed 11/07/18 Page 6 of 18
1. General Jurisdiction

As in the case of Farber, 84 F.Supp.3d at 423, “[t]his case concerns the

impact of two recent United States Supreme Court decisions, Goodyear

Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 546 U.S. 915, 131 S.Ct. 2846 (2011),

and Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014), on a federal

court’s authority to exercise general jurisdiction over a nonresident corporate

defendant, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

As the court in Plumbers’ Local Union, 2017 WL 3129147, *4,

explained:

“[O]nly a limited set of affiliations with a forum will render a

defendant amenable to all-purpose jurisdiction there.” Daimler,

134 S. Ct. at 760. “A court may assert general jurisdiction over

foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any

and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State

are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially

at home in the forum State.” Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919. The

paradigm forums, in which a corporation is reasonably regarded

as at home, are the place of incorporation and the principal place

of business. Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 760. “The exercise of general

jurisdiction is not limited to these forums; in an ‘exceptional case,’

a corporate defendant’s operations in another forum ‘may be so

substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation at

home in that State.’” BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549,

1558 (2017) (quoting Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 761, n.19). However,

“the exercise of general jurisdiction in every State in which a

corporation ‘engages in a substantial, continuous, and systematic

course of business' ..., is unacceptably grasping.” Daimler, 134 S.

Ct. at 761 (citation omitted). “The Fourteenth Amendment due

process constraint described in Daimler ... applies to all

state-court assertions of general jurisdiction over nonresident

defendants; the constraint does not vary with the type of claim

asserted or business enterprise sued.” Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. at

1558–59.

7

Case 3:19-cv-00115-SK Document 27 Filed 11/07/18 Page 7 of 18
Since Carbonite concedes that the court cannot exercise general

jurisdiction over Overaa in Pennsylvania, (Doc. 19 at 11), in light of those

Supreme Court decisions the court will now address whether it can exercise

specific jurisdiction over Overaa, a California company which is incorporated

and has its principal place of business in the California.

2. Specific Jurisdiction 

Carbonite argues that this court has specific jurisdiction over Overaa.

“Specific jurisdiction is dependent upon the relationship of the litigation to the

defendant’s contacts with the forum, i.e., the court’s focus is on the minimum

contacts between the non-resident defendant and the forum.” Gorton v. Air &

Liquid Systems Corporation, 303 F.Supp.3d 278, 291-92 (M.D.Pa. 2018)

(citations omitted). “Specific jurisdiction is present only if the plaintiff’s cause

of action arises out of a defendant’s forum-related activities, such that the

defendant ‘should reasonably anticipate being haled into court’ in that forum.”

Id. at 292 (citations omitted).

The central question is whether Overaa purposefully availed itself “of the

privilege of conducting business within the forum state, thus invoking the

benefits and protections of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253

(1958). The defendant must “purposefully direct[] [its] activities at residents

of the forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or

related to those activities.” BP Chemicals Ltd. v. Formosa Chemical & Fibre

Corp., 229 F.3d 254, 259 (3d Cir. 2000) (quotations and citations omitted).

8

Case 3:19-cv-00115-SK Document 27 Filed 11/07/18 Page 8 of 18
Moreover, the Supreme Court clarified that the minimum contacts “analysis

looks to the defendant’s contact with the forum State itself, not the

defendant’s contact with persons who reside there.” Walden v. Fiore, 134

S.Ct. 1115 (2014). “For a State to exercise jurisdiction consistent with due

process, the defendant’s suit-related conduct must create a substantial

connection with the forum State.” Id. at 1121. “[A]lthough physical presence

in the forum is not a prerequisite to jurisdiction, physical entry into the

State—either by the defendant in person or through an agent, goods, mail, or

some other means—is certainly a relevant contact.” Id. (citation omitted).

Thus, “specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant exists when: (1)

the defendant ‘purposefully directed [its] activities’ at the forum; and (2) the

litigation ‘arise[s] out of or relate[s] to’ at least one of the defendant’s activities

in Pennsylvania. Plumbers’ Local Union, 2017 WL 3129147, *5 (citation

omitted). “If the ‘purposeful availment’ and ‘relatedness’ requirements are met,

a court may exercise personal jurisdiction as long as the assertion of

jurisdiction ‘comport[s] with ‘fair play and substantial justice.’” Id. (citing Burger

King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476 (1985)).

The court now considers the first requirement stated above.

In determining whether Overaa “purposefully avails itself of the privilege

of conducting activities within [Pennsylvania]”, the court is mindful that

“[p]hysical presence in the forum is not required, ‘[b]ut what is necessary is

a deliberate targeting of the forum.’” Plumbers’ Local Union, 2017 WL

3129147, *5 (citations omitted). See also Britax Child Safety, Inc. v. Nuna

9

Case 3:19-cv-00115-SK Document 27 Filed 11/07/18 Page 9 of 18
International B.V., 321 F.Supp.3d 546, 554 (E.D.Pa. 2018)(“a defendant must

act so as to enjoy the ‘privilege of conducting activities within the forum

state.’”) (citations omitted).

Overaa argues that this court cannot exercise specific personal

jurisdiction over it based on the Affidavit of Christopher Manning, President

of Overaa, (Doc. 12-2), in which he avers:

Overaa is incorporated under the laws of the State of California,

and its principal place of business is Richmond, California.

Overaa is not incorporated, organized or existing under any

Pennsylvania law, and it is not registered to do business in

Pennsylvania. Only twice has Overaa worked outside of

California, once in Oregon and once in Arizona. Overaa does not

do business in Pennsylvania. Overaa has no employees in

Pennsylvania. Overaa has no offices, facilities or places of

business in Pennsylvania. Overaa does not maintain a mailing

address or phone number in Pennsylvania. Overaa has no bank

accounts in Pennsylvania. Overaa does not own or lease any real

estate, or any other assets, in Pennsylvania. Overaa does not

have a registered agent in Pennsylvania for service of process.

Overaa does not regularly conduct business with any

Pennsylvania resident or company.

Manning further avers that:

The amounts of Overaa’s purchases of goods and services from

Pennsylvania companies from 2010 to the present total less then

one-half of one percent of the amount of Overaa’s overall goods

and services purchases. Overaa does not have any substantial,

systematic and/or continuous contacts with Pennsylvania or any

of its residents. Overaa has never had a construction project in

Pennsylvania and has never provided any goods or services in

Pennsylvania. Overaa does not advertise in Pennsylvania, and it

does not solicit business in Pennsylvania. No Overaa employee

has ever made any sales or marketing trips to Pennsylvania.

Overaa has never directed its services to any Pennsylvania

residents. Overaa has never availed itself of business

opportunities in, or the protections of the laws of, Pennsylvania.

Overaa has never consented to jurisdiction in Pennsylvania, and

[its] standard Purchase Order [ ], provides that disputes shall be

10

Case 3:19-cv-00115-SK Document 27 Filed 11/07/18 Page 10 of 18
resolved according to California law.

In his Affidavit, Manning explains the nature of its relationship with

Carbonfilt regarding the Project and states that Overaa has no affiliation with

Carbonfilt and that in April 2013, Overaa contracted with Carbonfilt, a Florida

company, to arrange for the supply of coal and sand for the Project. Manning

states that “Carbonfilt is not, and never has been, an agent or representative

of Overaa, and Carbonfilt does not have, and has never had, any authority to

enter into any contracts on behalf of Overaa, or to bind Overaa to any

contractual or other obligations.”

Additionally, Manning states that Overaa had no role in Carbonfilt’s

decision to then purchase the coal needed for the Project from Carbonite and,

that Overaa was not a party to the June 2015 Purchase Order between

Carbonite and Carbonfilt.

3 Further, Manning states that after Carbonfilt bought

the coal from Carbonite, Carbonfilt in turn sold the coal to Overaa under a

separate contract between Carbonfilt and Overaa. He states that Overaa had

no contract with Carbonite regarding the Project, and that Overaa did not

order the coal from Carbonite and did not agree to pay Carbonite for the coal.

Additionally, Carbonite never billed Overaa for the coal it sold to Carbonfilt.

Thus, no privity of contract existed between Overaa and Carbonite. Manning

also points out that Overaa had no involvement with the payment terms of the

contract between Carbonfilt and Carbonite, and it had no involvement

3A copy of the June 2015 Purchase Order between Carbonite and

Carbonfilt is attached to the complaint.

11

Case 3:19-cv-00115-SK Document 27 Filed 11/07/18 Page 11 of 18
Carbonfilt’s decision not to pay Carbonite in full for the coal. Manning also

avers that before the coal was delivered to the Project, Overaa had no contact

at all with Carbonite.

In support of its contention that Overaa has actively availed itself of the

laws and protections of Pennsylvania, Carbonite argues that “Overaa was

required to used ‘acceptable media suppliers’ from Pennsylvania who

manufactured Pennsylvania anthracite coal pursuant to the City of

Sacramento spec sheet”, and that “Overaa knew it could only procure

anthracite coal from Pennsylvania because that is the only location where

anthracite coal is found in the United States and the acceptable Pennsylvania

anthracite coal suppliers were specifically identified by the City of Sacramento

in the spec sheet.”

Thus, Carbonite states that both Overaa and the City of Sacramento

knew that they would have to obtain anthracite coal for the Project from

Pennsylvania and that the City identified it as one of the four “acceptable

media suppliers.”

Carbonite also contends that even though Overaa’s contract

negotiations with Carbonfilt did not occur in Pennsylvania, and even though

Overaa did not have any contract with a Pennsylvania company, Overaa has

purposely availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in

Pennsylvania since Carbonite’s contract with Carbonfilt required it to ship the

coal for the Project from Pennsylvania to California. Thus, Carbonite states

that “Pennsylvania performance is essential because the anthracite coal

12

Case 3:19-cv-00115-SK Document 27 Filed 11/07/18 Page 12 of 18
Overaa wanted is primarily found in Pennsylvania and was manufactured in

and shipped from Pennsylvania”, the state which contains all of the country’s

anthracite coal reserves.

Moreover, Carbonite states that jurisdictional discovery in this case has

revealed that Overaa has done over $8 million worth of business with 59

different Pennsylvania companies over the last 8 years. (Doc. 19, Ex. 8). As

stated, Manning avers that “[t]he amounts of Overaa’s purchases of goods

and services from Pennsylvania companies from 2010 to the present total

less then one-half of one percent of the amount of Overaa’s overall goods and

services purchases.” In this case, while Overaa contends that it does not do

significant business in Pennsylvania and it does not target Pennsylvania for

its services, the fact that Overaa has conducted $8 million of business with

several Pennsylvania companies over the last 8 years sufficiently shows that

Overaa has purposeful availed itself of conducting activities within

Pennsylvania. See O'Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312, 317 (3d

Cir. 2007) (a defendant’s contacts with the forum must amount to “a

deliberate targeting of the forum.”).

Thus, the court finds that Overaa has purposefully availed itself of

conducting activities in Pennsylvania.

Next, the court considers the relatedness factor. “[S]pecific jurisdiction

is confined to adjudication of ‘issues deriving from, or connected with, the very

controversy that establishes jurisdiction.’” Id. (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S. at

919). “[A] connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue” is

13

Case 3:19-cv-00115-SK Document 27 Filed 11/07/18 Page 13 of 18
required. Id. (quoting Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California,

137 S. Ct. 1773, 1781 (2017)). “[A] plaintiff's claims must ‘arise out of or relate

to’ a defendant’s forum contacts”, and in order for claims to “‘arise out of or

relate to’ a defendant’s contacts, ‘the causal connection can be somewhat

looser than the tort concept of proximate causation, but it must nonetheless

be intimate enough to keep the quid pro quo proportional and personal

jurisdiction reasonably foreseeable.’” Id. (citing O’Connor, 496 F.3d at 323).

“The inquiry is ‘necessarily fact-sensitive.’” Id.

“Simply put, the defendant’s contacts with the forum state must be

material to the claim. The court may not exercise personal jurisdiction if the

defendant’s contacts with the forum are ‘too attenuated.’” Gorton, 303

F.Supp.3d at 292. (citations omitted).

Overaa argues that there is no specific jurisdiction over it in

Pennsylvania since Carbonite failed to establish that its claims arise out of or

relate to Overaa’s activities within Pennsylvania. Further, while Carbonite

attempts to address Overaa’s forum related activities which give rise to its

causes of action, Overaa’s dealings with other Pennsylvania companies and

its conduct in Pennsylvania over 8 years unrelated to Carbonite’s instant

claims and the Project are not sufficient to subject Overaa to this court’s

jurisdiction in Pennsylvania with respect to the relatedness requirement. See

Gorton F.Supp.3d at 292 (plaintiff must show that its alleged injuries in its

case were caused by the defendant’s “activities that were directed at the state

of Pennsylvania.”).

14

Case 3:19-cv-00115-SK Document 27 Filed 11/07/18 Page 14 of 18
Here, the court finds that Carbonite’s claims do not “arise out of or relate

to” Overaa’s forum contacts. Further, simply because “Overaa needed

Pennsylvania mined and manufactured anthracite coal to install in a series of

water filters at the City of Sacramento water treatment plant”, as Carbonite

alleges, does not change the fact that Overaa did not contact any company

in Pennsylvania to get the coal and sand it needed for the Project and, it did

not perform any activities for the Project in Pennsylvania. In addition, as

Overaa points out, the specifications for the Project also identified two

companies that were not from Pennsylvania who were authorized to supply

the coal for the Project. Thus, as Overaa states, “[j]urisdiction cannot be

based solely on the geographical source of materials used in a construction

project.” 

Regardless of Carbonite’s claim that Overaa attempted to circumvent

the City of Sacramento’s spec sheet for the Project regarding the required

coal and that Carbonfilt was not qualified to bid on the job, the fact remains

that Overaa did not seek to obtain the coal from any Pennsylvania company

and did not enter into any contract for the purchase of the coal from any

Pennsylvania company. Rather, Overaa chose to deal with Carbonfilt, a

Florida company, to arrange for the supply of both the sand and the coal it

needed for the Project, and Overaa had no involvement with Carbonfilt’s

decision to then contract with Carbonite to get the coal. As Overaa states in

its reply brief, (Doc. 22 at 3-4), “the mere fact that Pennsylvania coal was

required for the Project cannot alone subject Overaa to jurisdiction in the

15

Case 3:19-cv-00115-SK Document 27 Filed 11/07/18 Page 15 of 18
Pennsylvania Courts. If this were the case, the logical extension of this

argument would create absurd results[], such as, “each and every person and

entity, including the City of Sacramento, who was involved in the Project and

benefitted from [Carbonite’s] supply of coal, could be subject to jurisdiction in

Pennsylvania simply because the coal came from Pennsylvania.”

4

Nor does the court find that Carbonite’s claims that it was not fully paid

for the coal it provided for the Project arise out of or relate to any contacts

Overaa had with Pennsylvania. “[A] defendant’s knowledge of a plaintiff’s

existence in the forum State or knowledge that its conduct may cause a

plaintiff to experience harm in the forum State are insufficient justifications for

establishing specific jurisdiction.” Miller v. Native Link Construction, LLC, 2017

WL 3536175, *23 (W.D.Pa. Aug. 17, 2017) (citation omitted). The court in

Miller, id., also cited to Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1124 (2014), noting

that the Supreme Court “reject[ed] the appellate court’s conclusion that the

necessary minimum contacts could be established by a defendant’s

knowledge of the plaintiff’s strong connections to a forum and a conclusion

that the plaintiff had suffered foreseeable harm there.”

Overaa had no direct contacts with Pennsylvania with respect to its

4Carbonite largely relies on a Ninth Circuit Court case, namely, Decker

Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1986), to

support its contentions that this court has specific jurisdiction over Overaa. As

Overaa explains in its reply brief, (Doc. 22 at 4-5), Carbonite’s reliance on

Decker is misplaced since there is no contract between Carbonite and

Overaa, and since Carbonite shipped the coal to California in only 3

shipments over approximately 1 month.

16

Case 3:19-cv-00115-SK Document 27 Filed 11/07/18 Page 16 of 18
general contractor work for the Project and it did not solicit and contract with

any company in Pennsylvania to supply the coal. Although Carbonite

manufactured the anthracite in Pennsylvania and delivered the coal to Overaa

in California, there was no contract between Overaa and Carbonite for Overaa

to buy the coal. Rather, Carbonite sold the coal to Carbonfilt, not Overaa.

Certainly any claims that Carbonite may have against Carbonfilt for breach of

contract and nonpayment for its coal would seem to arise from Carbonfilt’s

contacts with Pennsylvania, but there is no causal connection between

Carbonite’s claims and any Pennsylvania contacts by Overaa.

As such, it cannot be said that Overaa availed itself of the benefits and

protections of Pennsylvania law when it contracted with Carbonfilt to arrange

for the supply of coal it needed for the Project in California. Thus, Carbonite’s

instant claims do not arise out of or relate to any of Overaa’s activities in

Pennsylvania. Thus, it was not reasonably foreseeable that Overaa would

have to litigate the instant claims regarding the nonpayment for Carbonite’s

coal in Pennsylvania.

Accordingly, specific personal jurisdiction over Overaa does not exist in

Pennsylvania because both of the aforementioned requirements are not

satisfied. Since the court finds that the “relatedness” requirement is not met,

the court does not have to consider whether the exercise of personal

jurisdiction over Overaa comports with “fair play and substantial justice.”

Plumbers’ Local Union, 2017 WL 3129147, at *5 (quoting Burger King, 471

U.S. at 476); see also Gorton, 303 F.Supp.3d at 292 (citing O’Connor, 496

17

Case 3:19-cv-00115-SK Document 27 Filed 11/07/18 Page 17 of 18
F.3d at 317).

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons discussed above, Overaa’s motion to dismiss, (Doc.

12), Carbonite’s complaint, (Doc. 1), for lack of personal jurisdiction is

GRANTED. An appropriate order shall follow.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion

MALACHY E. MANNION

United States District Judge

Date: November 7, 2018

O:\Mannion\shared\MEMORANDA - DJ\CIVIL MEMORANDA\2018 MEMORANDA\18-1238-01.wpd

18

Case 3:19-cv-00115-SK Document 27 Filed 11/07/18 Page 18 of 18