IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES E. ABEL, et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

DOODAUTH A. KIRBARAN, et al. : NO. 05-1560

MEMORANDUM

Bartle, C.J. May 11, 2006

Plaintiff James E. Abel ("Abel") has sued defendants

Doodauth A. Kirbaran ("Kirbaran"), Mitchell Ross ("Ross") and MR

Cars, Inc. ("MR Cars") in this diversity action for personal

injuries arising out of an automobile accident. Before the court

is the motion of defendants Ross and MR Cars for summary

judgment. 

On April 7, 2003, Abel and Kirbaran were involved in an

automobile accident on Interstate 95 in Philadelphia. In

addition to suing Kirbaran for negligence and loss of consortium,

Abel and his wife, Mary Beth Abel, seek to hold defendants Ross

and MR Cars vicariously liable for the actions of Kirbaran as the

owners of the vehicle Kirbaran was driving. Under Rule 56(c) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we may grant summary

judgment only if there is no genuine issue as to any material

fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

Case 2:05-cv-01560-HB Document 21 Filed 05/11/06 Page 1 of 6
-2-

It is undisputed that Ross is an owner and corporate

officer of MR Cars, a company engaged in the business of selling

used cars. The company purchases used cars primarily from dealer

owned outlet auctions and has them transported to its lot in

Tennessee where they are held for resale. Sometime prior to

April 7, 2003 Ross purchased, on behalf of MR Cars, a 1992 Dodge

Caravan through the internet from an auto auction in Maryland. 

He hired an individual, Francisco Belez, to drive the van from

Maryland to New York so it could be shipped to Tennessee. 

At the time of the accident with Abel, Kirbaran was

driving the van. Ross did not know Kirbaran. He did not give

Belez authority to allow anyone else to drive the van, and there

is no evidence that any other representative of MR Cars granted

Belez such authority. It is unknown how Kirbaran came into

possession of the vehicle, for neither he nor Belez can now be

located. 

Ross seeks dismissal as a defendant for lack of

personal jurisdiction. Pennsylvania's long-arm statute

authorizes Pennsylvania courts to exercise personal jurisdiction

to the "fullest extent allowed under the Constitution of the

United States." 42 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 5322(b). Due process

requires that the defendant have "minimum contacts" in the forum

state, and that the exercise of jurisdiction comport with

"traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." 

Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). "[I]t is

essential ... that there be some act by which the defendant

Case 2:05-cv-01560-HB Document 21 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 6
-3-

personally avails itself of the privilege of conducting

activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and

protections of its laws." Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253

(1958) (citation omitted). 

A court may exercise either general or specific

jurisdiction over a defendant. Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248,

255 (3d Cir. 2001). General jurisdiction applies when the cause

of action does not arise out of and is not related to the

defendant's contacts with the forum. Helicopteros Nacionales de

Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415 n.9 (1984). "[T]he

plaintiff must show significantly more than mere minimum contacts

to establish general jurisdiction. The nonresident's contacts to

the forum must be continuous and substantial." Provident Nat'l

Bank v. Cal. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 819 F.2d 434, 437 (3d Cir.

1987) (citations omitted). Specific jurisdiction is proper when

the "cause of action arises out of [the] defendant's forumrelated activities, such that the defendant 'should reasonably

anticipate being haled into court' in that forum." Remick, 238

F.3d at 255; see also World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444

U.S. 286, 297 (1980). Where the defendant has raised a

jurisdictional defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of

establishing, through sworn affidavits or other competent

evidence, that either general or specific jurisdiction can be

exercised. Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, N.A. v. DiVeronica Bros.

Inc., 983 F.2d 551, 554 (3d Cir. 1993); Time Share Vacation Club

v. Atlantic Resorts, Ltd., 735 F.2d 61, 66 n.9 (3d Cir. 1984).

Case 2:05-cv-01560-HB Document 21 Filed 05/11/06 Page 3 of 6
-4-

Ross resides and works in Tennessee. Plaintiffs have

not come forward with evidence that Ross has had continuous and

substantial contact with Pennsylvania such that general

jurisdiction may be exercised. Provident, 819 F.2d at 437.

Further, specific jurisdiction may not be exercised because the

accident did not arise out of a Pennsylvania related activity of

Ross, such that he should anticipate being haled into court. 

Remick, 238 F.3d at 255; see also World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S.

at 297. Ross did not drive the car through Pennsylvania and did

not direct that it be driven through Pennsylvania. He did not

purchase it from an auction in Pennsylvania, and it was not being

delivered here. Thus, we will dismiss Ross as a defendant for

lack of personal jurisdiction. 

MR Cars contends that it cannot be held vicariously

liable for the actions of Kirbaran because there is no proof he

was acting as its servant. Valles v. Albert Einstein Med. Ctr.,

805 A.2d 1232, 1237 (Pa. 2002); Leonard v. Commw. of Pa., 771

A.2d 1238, 1240 (Pa. 2001); Smalich v. Westfall, 269 A.2d 476,

480-81 (Pa. 1970); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY §§ 1 and 2. We

agree. There is no evidence that Ross or any representative of

MR Cars authorized or consented to Kirbaran driving the van to

New York. As noted above, Ross did not know Kirbaran. Even

assuming that MR Cars would be liable for any accident caused by

Belez, it does not follow that MR Cars would be responsible for

any accident caused by Kirbaran. Mere ownership of a vehicle is

insufficient to impose liability for its negligent operation by

Case 2:05-cv-01560-HB Document 21 Filed 05/11/06 Page 4 of 6
-5-

another. Double v. Myers, 157 A. 610, 611 (1931); see also

Smalich, 269 A.2d at 480. The record is barren as to how and

under what circumstances Kirbaran came into possession of the

van. For all that is known, it could have been stolen. 

Plaintiffs cannot successfully defend against a summary judgment

motion based on mere speculation. Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n,

497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990).

Under the circumstances, MR Cars cannot be held

vicariously liable for the actions of Kirbaran. Thus, summary

judgment will be granted in favor of MR Cars and against

plaintiffs. 

Case 2:05-cv-01560-HB Document 21 Filed 05/11/06 Page 5 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES E. ABEL, et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

DOODAUTH A. KIRBARAN, et al. : NO. 05-1560

ORDER

AND NOW, this 11th day of May, 2006, for the reasons

set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED

that:

(1) the motion of defendant Mitchell Ross to dismiss

this action for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED;

(2) the motion of defendant MR Cars, Inc. for summary

judgment is GRANTED; and

(3) judgment is entered in favor of defendant MR Cars,

Inc. and against plaintiffs James E. Abel and Mary Beth Abel.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Harvey Bartle III 

 C.J.

Case 2:05-cv-01560-HB Document 21 Filed 05/11/06 Page 6 of 6