Bullivant|Houser|Bailey PC 

300 Pioneer Tower 

888 SW Fifth Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97204-2089 

Telephone: 503.228.6351 

DEFENDANT PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC'S MOTION 

TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SPECIFIC JURISDICTION 

AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Page 1

Kyle D. Sciuchetti, OSB #965705 

E-Mail: kyle.s@bullivant.com 

Matthew C. Casey, OSB #981950 

E-Mail: matt.casey@bullivant.com 

Bullivant Houser Bailey PC 

300 Pioneer Tower 

888 SW Fifth Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97204-2089 

Telephone: 503.228.6351 

Facsimile: 503.295.0915 

Attorneys for Defendant Pilot Travel Centers LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

JEFFREY D. LANHAM, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC, a 

Delaware limited liability company, and 

DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Civil No.: 3:14-cv-01923-HZ

DEFENDANT PILOT TRAVEL 

CENTERS, LLC'S MOTION TO 

DISMISS FOR LACK OF SPECIFIC 

JURISDICTION AND SUPPORTING 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) 

Request for Oral Argument 

I. COMPLIANCE WITH LR 7-1 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1, counsel for Pilot Travel Centers, LLC (“Pilot”) certifies 

that a good faith effort to confer with plaintiff’s counsel concerning the issue raised in this 

motion was made prior to filing this motion, but the parties were unable to resolve their 

dispute. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(d)(2), Pilot requests oral argument of this motion. 
Bullivant|Houser|Bailey PC 

300 Pioneer Tower 

888 SW Fifth Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97204-2089 

Telephone: 503.228.6351 

DEFENDANT PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC'S MOTION 

TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SPECIFIC JURISDICTION 

AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Page 2

II. MOTION 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), Pilot moves the court for an Order dismissing it 

from this action for lack of personal jurisdiction—particularly, lack of “specific” jurisdiction. 

III. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 

Plaintiff alleges that on November 8, 2012 he tripped and fell in the parking lot of a 

Pilot Travel Center—in Mt. Home, Idaho. It is undisputed that the alleged fall occurred in 

another state, and plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting that the alleged fall arose out of, or 

resulted from, any activity of Pilot in the State of Oregon. Nevertheless, on November 5, 

2014, plaintiff filed a negligence/premises liability action in Multnomah County Circuit 

Court. That lawsuit was removed by Pilot to this court on December 2, 2014.1

In determining whether a non-resident defendant is subject to specific jurisdiction, the 

Ninth Circuit has articulated a three-part analysis: (1) the non-resident defendant must have 

done some act or consummated some transaction within the forum state by which it 

purposely availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state; (2) the 

plaintiff’s claims against the defendant must have arisen out of, or resulted from, the nonresident defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must be 

reasonable. 

The test is stated in the conjunctive—all three requirements must be satisfied. Here, 

the court only needs to focus on the second requirement. When it does so, it will conclude 

that in a “premises liability” personal injury lawsuit, where the only allegations of negligence 

 

1

 Pilot reserved all legal arguments pertaining to jurisdiction and raised appropriate 

affirmative defenses in its Answer, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and (h), on December 

10, 2014. 
Bullivant|Houser|Bailey PC 

300 Pioneer Tower 

888 SW Fifth Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97204-2089 

Telephone: 503.228.6351 

DEFENDANT PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC'S MOTION 

TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SPECIFIC JURISDICTION 

AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Page 3

necessarily involve actions occurring in another state, the second requirement of the test 

cannot be satisfied. As a result, specific jurisdiction does not exist, and plaintiff’s lawsuit 

must be dismissed. 

IV. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 

A. Applicable Legal Standards. 

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over a non-resident 

defendant. Farmers Ins. Ex. V. Portage La Prairie Mut. Ins., 907 F.2d 911, 912 (9th Cir. 

1990); see also State ex rel. Circus Circus Reno, Inc. v. Pope, 317 Or. 151, 854 P.2d 461 

(1993) (“The burden is on the plaintiff * * * to establish facts sufficient to support the 

exercise of jurisdiction.” Id., 317 Or. at 152). “Where, as here, there is no applicable federal 

statute governing personal jurisdiction, the law of the state in which the district court sits 

applies.” Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Indus. AB, 11 F.3d 1482, 1484 (9th Cir. 1993). 

When analyzing personal jurisdiction under Oregon’s personal jurisdiction statute, the 

court first looks to specific provisions of ORCP 4 A through K. If none of those provisions 

provide a basis for personal jurisdiction, then the court turns to ORCP 4 L, which provides a 

“catchall provision intended to extend Oregon jurisdiction to the limits of due process.” 

Showalter v. Edwards and Associates, Inc., 112 Or. App. 472, 477, 831 P.2d 58 (1992). 

Where the state and federal limits are coextensive, the court “must determine whether the 

exercise of jurisdiction comports with federal constitutional principles of due process.” 

Davis v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 861 F.2d 1159, 1161 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Federal due process, in turn, requires that a defendant have at least a “minimum level 

of contact with the forum state before personal jurisdiction may be exercised.” World-Wide 
Bullivant|Houser|Bailey PC 

300 Pioneer Tower 

888 SW Fifth Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97204-2089 

Telephone: 503.228.6351 

DEFENDANT PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC'S MOTION 

TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SPECIFIC JURISDICTION 

AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Page 4

Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292 (1980); Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 

U.S. 310, 316 (1945). “Minimum contacts” refer to substantively relevant, forum-related 

facts, and can result in either “general” or “specific” jurisdiction. Ziegler v. Indian River 

County, 64 F.3d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1995). 

As noted, Pilot’s motion is that there is no “specific jurisdiction” in this instance. For 

specific jurisdiction, “there must be such a relationship among the defendant, the forum, and 

the litigation” that the controversy “is related to or ‘arises out of’ the defendant’s contacts 

with the forum.” Helicopters Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984). In 

determining whether a non-resident defendant is subject to specific jurisdiction, the Ninth 

Circuit has articulated a three-part analysis: (1) the non-resident defendant must have done 

some act or consummated some transaction within the forum state by which it purposely 

availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state; (2) the plaintiff’s 

claims against the defendant must have arisen out of, or resulted from, the non-resident 

defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. 

Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2006).2

/// 

/// 

 

2

 The plaintiff bears the burden of meeting the first two prongs of this test. Sher v. Johnson, 

911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990). If the plaintiff meets the first two prongs, the burden 

shifts to the defendant to “present a compelling case” that the exercise of personal 

jurisdiction would be unreasonable. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476-78 

(1985). Here, again, Pilot is focusing primarily on “prong (2)” of the test. Plaintiff has 

failed to allege any facts satisfying “prong (2)”, and cannot satisfy that requirement as a 

matter of law. If, however, plaintiff attempts to satisfy that prong in his Response, Pilot 

reserves all rights to present its own case that the exercise of personal jurisdiction in this 

instance would be unreasonable. 
Bullivant|Houser|Bailey PC 

300 Pioneer Tower 

888 SW Fifth Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97204-2089 

Telephone: 503.228.6351 

DEFENDANT PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC'S MOTION 

TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SPECIFIC JURISDICTION 

AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Page 5

B. Here, none of the activities that allegedly caused plaintiff harm occurred in 

Oregon. Accordingly, jurisdiction does not exist because no forum-related 

actions are implicated. 

In order to satisfy his burden of demonstrating specific jurisdiction, plaintiff must 

show that his claims against Pilot arose out of, or resulted from, Pilot’s Oregon-related 

activities. Here, because plaintiff has not alleged any Oregon-related activities—all activities 

relate to actions occurring in Mt. Home, Idaho—plaintiff cannot satisfy “prong (2)” of the 

test for specific jurisdiction. 

In State ex rel. Circus Circus Reno, Inc. v. Pope, 317 Or. 151, 854 P.2d 461 (1993), a 

personal injury claimant alleged he was injured in Reno, Nevada when he was hit by a liquor 

bottle thrown out of a hotel window. The claimant, an Oregon resident, filed a lawsuit 

against a Nevada corporation in an Oregon state circuit court. Circus Circus moved to 

dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion, but 

the Oregon Supreme Court ultimately concluded that jurisdiction in Oregon was not 

appropriate3

. The court reasoned: 

As previously stated, [claimant] alleged that he was injured by a 

bottle thrown from a window of a hotel in Reno, Nevada. In his 

complaint, [claimant] alleged that that injury resulted from 

Circus Circus’ negligence in various respects related solely to 

the operation of its hotel in Nevada. As material here, 

[claimant’s] complaint alleged that Circus Circus was negligent 

in “failing to keep the hotel windows bolted,” “failing to protect 

street level pedestrians from objects thrown from hotel 

windows,” “failing to warn pedestrians,” of the danger of falling 

objects, “failing to prevent * * * guests * * * from throwing 

 

3

 Much like this case, Circus Circus is a “premises liability” case. The Oregon Supreme 

Court analyzed whether jurisdiction was appropriate under ORCP 4 A (“general”), D 

(“specific”) and/or L (“catchall”), and ultimately concluded that the Circus Circus hotel was 

not subject to jurisdiction under any of these rules. 
Bullivant|Houser|Bailey PC 

300 Pioneer Tower 

888 SW Fifth Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97204-2089 

Telephone: 503.228.6351 

DEFENDANT PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC'S MOTION 

TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SPECIFIC JURISDICTION 

AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Page 6

objects” from hotel windows, and “failing to comply with 

Reno[, Nevada] Municipal Ordinances.” The alleged injury did 

not arise out of or relate to Circus Circus’ activities in Oregon. 

Id., at 160-61. 

Additionally, the Circus Circus Court noted that any argument that the claimant “felt 

the effects” of the injury in the state of Oregon, would not be persuasive. “[Claimant] was 

injured in Nevada and felt the immediate effects of his injury there. The fact that he 

continued to experience some effects of the injury after returning to Oregon does not 

establish jurisdiction under ORCP 4 D(1). Circus Circus is not subject to specific 

jurisdiction of the Oregon circuit court under that provision.” Id., at 155-56. 

Subsequently, Oregon’s appellate courts have consistently held that jurisdiction is not 

appropriate where the alleged injurious event occurs outside of the state of Oregon, yet the 

claimant seeks to sue in Oregon. See Steers v. Rescue 3, Inc., 129 Or.App. 20, 877 P.2d 654 

(1994) (A Canadian water rescue trainee attempted to sue in Oregon for a water training 

accident occurring in Canada. The trial court concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction 

over the owner of the defendant company, and the court of appeals affirmed.); see also 

Robinson v. Harley-Davidson Motor Company, 247 Or.App. 587, 270 P.3d 367 (2012) (An 

Oregon resident motorcycle owner was injured while riding in Wyoming. He filed a lawsuit 

in Oregon against an Idaho company that performed services on the motorcycle the day 

before the accident. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction, 

and the court of appeals affirmed). 

Here, like in Circus Circus, there is no question that plaintiff’s accident did not occur 

in Oregon. There is also no question that the allegations of negligence identified in 

plaintiff’s Complaint relate to actions that either occurred (or, allegedly failed to occur) in a 
Bullivant|Houser|Bailey PC 

300 Pioneer Tower 

888 SW Fifth Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97204-2089 

Telephone: 503.228.6351 

DEFENDANT PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC'S MOTION 

TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SPECIFIC JURISDICTION 

AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Page 7

state other than Oregon. Here, plaintiff specifically alleges that Pilot: 

a. Failed to maintain [sic] operate, manage and control the premises including, but 

not limited to, the parking lot, truck inspection area and/or surrounding area where 

Plaintiff fell, in a reasonably safe condition; 

b. Failed to remove concrete chunks and/or other debris in an area where Plaintiff 

would be expected to go; 

c. Allowed a concrete wall on the premises near the area where Plaintiff fell to 

remain in disrepair when Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care 

should have known, the disrepair created an unreasonable risk of harm to Plaintiff 

and others lawfully on the premises; 

d. Failed to warn Plaintiff of the danger presented by the present of the debris in the 

parking lot, trucking inspection area and/or surrounding area where Plaintiff fell; 

e. Failed to make a reasonable inspection of its premises when it knew or in the 

exercise of ordinary [sic] should have known that said inspection was necessary to 

prevent injury to Plaintiff and others lawfully on the premises; 

f. Allowed the premises to remain in a dangerous condition for an unreasonable 

length of time with debris remaining in the areas where Plaintiff would be 

expected to go and creating a tripping hazard; 

g. Failed to provide adequate lighting for the premises including, but not limited to 

the parking lot, truck inspection area and/or surrounding area where Plaintiff fell; 

h. Failed to repair the concrete wall in the area where Plaintiff fell; 

i. Created the dangerous or defective condition in the parking lot, truck inspection 

area and/or surrounding area where Plaintiff fell; 

j. Failed to place barriers between where trucks would be expected to be parked and 

the concrete wall behind them; and 

k. Failed to otherwise exercise due care with respect to the condition of the premises. 

(Plaintiff’s Complaint, p. 3, ¶10,). 

All of defendant’s alleged “failures” necessarily relate to a specific parking lot/truck 

inspection area, located at a specific Pilot travel center, in Mt. Home, Idaho. No 

actions/inactions having anything to do with the State of Oregon are identified. And, there is 
Bullivant|Houser|Bailey PC 

300 Pioneer Tower 

888 SW Fifth Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97204-2089 

Telephone: 503.228.6351 

DEFENDANT PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC'S MOTION 

TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SPECIFIC JURISDICTION 

AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Page 8

no question that the alleged injury, itself, occurred at the time of the fall in Idaho. 

Furthermore, Idaho premises law should apply, and if there are fact witnesses to the event, 

itself, they would likely be located in Idaho. 

Just as the court in Circus Circus concluded, an Oregon court does not have 

jurisdiction under such facts. Therefore, this court must dismiss plaintiff’s lawsuit for lack of 

specific jurisdiction. 

C. Courts in other jurisdictions have reached the same result—concluding that in a 

“premises liability” lawsuit the location where the accident occurred is the 

appropriate place to file suit. 

Much like Oregon’s Supreme Court in Circus Circus, courts in other jurisdictions 

which have considered the same issue have concluded that the appropriate place for a 

“premises liability” lawsuit is the locale of the “premises”—that is, the place where the 

alleged tortious acts were alleged to have occurred. 

For example, in Double Eagle Resorts, Inc. v. Mott, 216 S.W.3d 890 (Ct. App Texas 

2007), a patron of a Colorado casino fell from a bar stool, injuring himself. Instead of filing 

suit in Colorado, he filed suit in Texas, where he resided. The Texas Court of Appeals noted 

that jurisdiction is proper only if the cause of action arises from a particular activity in the 

forum where the lawsuit is filed. Id., at 895. In holding that jurisdiction was not appropriate, 

the court wrote: “We conclude that Double Eagle’s alleged failure to warn and to make its 

premises safe occurred in Colorado, not Texas. The pleadings and the special appearance 

evidence show that the [plaintiffs’] claim arises from Double Eagle’s activity in Colorado, 

not from Double Eagle’s activity in Texas.” Id. 

/// 
Bullivant|Houser|Bailey PC 

300 Pioneer Tower 

888 SW Fifth Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97204-2089 

Telephone: 503.228.6351 

DEFENDANT PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC'S MOTION 

TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SPECIFIC JURISDICTION 

AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Page 9

Similarly, in Pichardo v. Zayas, 2014 WL 5836334 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), a plaintiff 

who was injured at defendants’ home in New Jersey filed a personal injury lawsuit in New 

York. In concluding that jurisdiction for the lawsuit was not appropriate in New York, the 

New York Supreme Court noted that there must be an articulable nexus between the 

defendant’s in-state activity and the claim asserted by the plaintiff. Id., at *2. The court 

reasoned: “Rather, the plaintiff asserts tort claims grounded in the [defendants’] duty to 

maintain their New Jersey property in a reasonably safe condition. This duty was allegedly 

breached by the [defendants’] provision of a defective saw, which caused the plaintiff to cut 

himself while at their New Jersey premises. Accordingly, the alleged duty owed by the 

[defendants] to the plaintiff, the alleged breach of that duty, and the plaintiff’s injury all 

arose or occurred in New Jersey.” Id. 

Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff fell in Idaho. On the face of the Complaint, it is 

evident that plaintiff is claiming that alleged failures to maintain or warn about conditions of 

very specific premises located in Mt. Home, Idaho caused his injury. No actions/inactions 

by Pilot in Oregon are alleged or identified, and certainly no actions by Pilot in Oregon could 

have any causal relationship to plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Just as in Circus Circus, Steers, 

and Harley-Davidson (as well as Double Eagle, and Pichardo), this court should conclude 

that a state where a premises liability accident did not occur is not the appropriate place for 

such a lawsuit to be filed. 

/// 

/// 

/// 
Bullivant|Houser|Bailey PC 

300 Pioneer Tower 

888 SW Fifth Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97204-2089 

Telephone: 503.228.6351 

DEFENDANT PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC'S MOTION 

TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SPECIFIC JURISDICTION 

AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Page 10

V. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the court should dismiss plaintiff’s lawsuit against Pilot. 

DATED: March 2, 2015 

BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC 

By /s/ Matthew C. Casey 

Kyle D. Sciuchetti, OSB #965705 

Matthew C. Casey, OSB #981950

Telephone: 503.228.6351 

Attorneys for Defendant Pilot Travel Centers LLC 

15363738.1