Opinion ID: 4235878
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Personal Jurisdiction over Airborne

Text: We first address whether the claims against Airborne were properly dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. In addressing that issue, we also 11 Case: 16-16187 Date Filed: 01/11/2018 Page: 12 of 33 consider whether the district court erred in dismissing Airborne before allowing jurisdictional discovery. “We review de novo whether the district court had personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.” Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339, 1350 (11th Cir. 2013). We review a district court’s denial, grant, or limitation of discovery for an abuse of discretion. United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260, 1280 (11th Cir. 2009).
District courts have the power to order the discovery of facts necessary to determine their jurisdiction over the merits. Eaton v. Dorchester Dev., Inc., 692 F.2d 727, 729 (11th Cir. 1982). Plaintiffs have “a qualified right to conduct jurisdictional discovery.” Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., Ltd., 178 F.3d 1209, 1214 n.7 (11th Cir. 1999). Jurisdictional discovery is appropriate when there is a dispute about the “facts that would support [the plaintiff’s] allegations of jurisdiction.” Majd-Pour v. Georgiana Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 724 F.2d 901, 903 (11th Cir. 1984). But a district court does not abuse its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff’s action for lack of personal jurisdiction, even before jurisdictional discovery occurs, when the plaintiff has not diligently pursued such discovery despite the opportunity to do so. See Mazer, 556 F.3d at 1280–81 (affirming the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for lack of personal jurisdiction before the plaintiffs conducted 12 Case: 16-16187 Date Filed: 01/11/2018 Page: 13 of 33 jurisdictional discovery). Indeed, in Mazer, we reasoned that, although the plaintiff recognized the need for jurisdictional discovery, the plaintiff never formally moved for such discovery and failed to take reasonable steps in seeking discovery during the more than four months that the defendant’s dismissal motion was pending. Id. Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Airborne for lack of personal jurisdiction before allowing jurisdictional discovery. As in Mazer, “[Aviation One] clearly recognized the potential utility of jurisdictional discovery, at least by the time it filed its response to [Airborne’s] motion to dismiss” on October 14, 2014. See id. at 1280. In fact, nearly three months earlier, Aviation One had filed a motion seeking jurisdictional discovery as to Clyde in conjunction with its response to Clyde’s motion to dismiss. But Aviation One never sought jurisdictional discovery as to Airborne in the five-and-a-half-month period that Airborne’s motion to dismiss was pending. Nor did Aviation One otherwise indicate in its response to Airborne’s motion to dismiss that discovery was needed to decide the issues of personal jurisdiction. 4 Because Aviation One failed to take reasonable steps to seek discovery from Airborne, “[w]e cannot say that the district 4 Aviation One suggests that the jurisdictional discovery it requested from Clyde was relevant to its claims against Airborne, but it fails to explain how the requested discovery would have supported its allegations of jurisdiction as to Airborne. Although Aviation One now appears to contend that Clyde and Airborne conspired to deprive Aviation One of its claims against Airborne, no such conspiracy was alleged in the amended complaint. 13 Case: 16-16187 Date Filed: 01/11/2018 Page: 14 of 33 court erred, much less abused its discretion.” See id. at 1281 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, we agree with the district court’s alternative determination that Aviation One “also failed to articulate what jurisdictional information it would seek or that it believes would be discovered as to Airborne.” Aviation One has not clearly briefed this issue to this Court, so it has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s ruling. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014) (issues not clearly raised in the briefs are considered abandoned). That ruling provides an independent and alternative basis for affirming the district court’s denial of jurisdictional discovery. See id. (“When an appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based its judgment, he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.”).
Ordinarily, we consider two questions in resolving personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant: (1) whether personal jurisdiction exists under the forum state’s long-arm statute; and (2) whether exercising jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Louis Vuitton, 736 F.3d at 1350. The district court reached the second of these requirements only, so we limit our discussion to that requirement. 14 Case: 16-16187 Date Filed: 01/11/2018 Page: 15 of 33
The Due Process Clause “requires that the defendant have minimum contacts with the forum state and that the exercise of jurisdiction not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Sloss Indus. Corp. v. Eurisol, 488 F.3d 922, 925 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); Vermeulen v. Renault, U.S.A., Inc., 985 F.2d 1534, 1545 (11th Cir. 1993). These requirements ensure that the defendant has “fair warning” that a particular activity may subject him to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985). Personal jurisdiction can be “general” or “specific.” See generally BristolMyers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1779–80 (2017). Here, Aviation One relies solely on specific jurisdiction. “The inquiry whether a forum State may assert specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant focuses on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1121 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). The exercise of personal jurisdiction requires that “the defendant’s suit-related conduct . . . create a substantial connection with the forum State.” Id. The focus is on “contacts that the ‘defendant himself’ creates with the forum state.” Id. (emphasis omitted). In a case involving specific jurisdiction, the minimum-contacts test encompasses two distinct requirements: (1) “relatedness”—that “the plaintiff’s 15 Case: 16-16187 Date Filed: 01/11/2018 Page: 16 of 33 claims ‘arise out of or relate to’ at least one of the defendant’s contacts with the forum”; and (2) “purposeful availment”—that “the nonresident defendant ‘purposefully availed’ himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefit of the forum state’s law.” Louis Vuitton, 736 F.3d at 1355. The defendant’s purposeful contacts with the forum must be such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. Id. at 1357. We may apply a different test for evaluating purposeful availment in intentional tort cases. Id. at 1356 (“In intentional tort cases, there are two applicable tests for determining whether purposeful availment occurred.”) (emphasis in original); see Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210, 1220 n.28 (11th Cir. 2009). Specifically, we may apply the “effects” test articulated by the Supreme Court in Calder v. Jones. Louis Vuitton, 736 F.3d at 1356. Generally, the Calder effects test “requires a showing that the defendant (1) committed an intentional tort (2) that was directly aimed at the forum, (3) causing an injury within the forum that the defendant should have reasonably anticipated.” Oldfield, 736 F.3d at 1220 n.8. A few other general points warrant mention. The Supreme Court has made clear that the “‘minimum contacts’ analysis looks to the defendant’s contacts with the forum State itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there.” Walden, 134 S. Ct. at 1122. As a result, “the plaintiff cannot be the only link 16 Case: 16-16187 Date Filed: 01/11/2018 Page: 17 of 33 between the defendant and the forum.” Id. Of course, “the defendant’s contacts with the forum State may be intertwined with his transactions or interactions with the plaintiff or other parties.” Id. at 1123. But the defendant’s relationship to the plaintiff, standing alone, “is an insufficient basis for jurisdiction.” Id. Thus, the fact of a contract between a resident plaintiff and non-resident defendant does not automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 478. Nor is “mere injury to a forum resident” a sufficient connection to the forum. Walden, 134 S. Ct. at 1125. “Due process requires that a defendant be haled into court in a forum State based on his own affiliations with the State, not based on the ‘random, fortuitous, or attenuated’ contacts he makes by interacting with other persons affiliated with the State.” Id. at 1123.
To recap, the relevant facts are as follows. Airborne, a South African insurance broker, was contacted by S.A. Guinee, a Georgia LLC, to procure insurance coverage for an aircraft that would be operating in West Africa. Airborne knew that the aircraft’s owner, Aviation One, was located in Florida, and Airborne agreed to procure insurance that named Aviation One as an insured and that included breach-of-warranty coverage that would have protected Aviation One’s interest in the aircraft. Airborne procured insurance from a South African 17 Case: 16-16187 Date Filed: 01/11/2018 Page: 18 of 33 insurer. The renewal policy, which was in effect at the time of the accident, was geographically limited to the continent of Africa.5 After the aircraft crashed on September 1, 2009, Aviation One was unable to recover from the South African insurer, allegedly due to Airborne’s failure to procure the requested breach-of-warranty endorsement. Over the next several months, Airborne communicated directly with Aviation One in Florida by phone and email in an unsuccessful attempt to challenge the insurer’s denial of the claim. Aviation One alleged that Airborne’s failure to advise it of material information during this time further harmed Aviation One. We hold that Airborne does not have sufficient minimum contacts with the state of Florida for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Airborne to comport with due process. Although Airborne agreed to procure insurance to cover Aviation One’s interest in the aircraft while it was being flown in West Africa by a non-resident third party, it did not “‘purposefully avail[]’ [itself] of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefit of the forum state’s law.” Louis Vuitton, 736 F.3d at 1355. Airborne did not solicit business in Florida, did not insure property or a risk in Florida, and had no direct contact with 5 Although the initial policy covered the aircraft’s ferry flight from Florida, the district court found that this fact was not relevant to the minimum-contacts analysis because none of the allegations of tortious conduct arose from that provision of the policy or any damage that occurred during the transport. See Oldfield, 558 F.3d at 1222–23 (stating that “the contact must be a ‘but-for’ cause of the tort.”). Aviation One does not clearly challenge that determination on appeal, so we deem any argument on this issue abandoned. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680 (issues not plainly raised on appeal are deemed abandoned). 18 Case: 16-16187 Date Filed: 01/11/2018 Page: 19 of 33 Aviation One in Florida before the crash. After the crash, its contacts with Florida were limited to representing Aviation One’s interests in a coverage dispute with an insurer based in South Africa. Overall, Airborne’s contacts with the forum state itself were not such that it should have reasonably anticipated being haled into court there. See id. at 1357. This case is similar to, but distinguishable from, two cases in which we have held that an out-of-state insurance broker who agreed to provide insurance coverage for a forum-state resident was subject to personal jurisdiction in the forum. In Ruiz de Molina, the defendants were out-of-state insurance brokers who agree to procure marine insurance for the plaintiff’s boat anchored in Alabama, the forum state. 207 F.3d at 1356–57. Although the defendants had no direct contact with Alabama, we held that they reasonably could have anticipated being haled into court there because the insurance policy “was to be purchased by and delivered to an Alabama resident for a boat anchored in Alabama which would, of necessity, move in Alabama waters.” Id. at 1357–58 (emphasis added); see id. 1357 (noting that the defendants “knew that the insurance they were procuring was for a boat owned by an Alabama resident which was located in Alabama and which would necessarily traverse Alabama waters”). Similarly, in Cronin v. Washington National Insurance Co., we held that an out-of-state insurance broker purposely availed itself of the benefits of Florida law 19 Case: 16-16187 Date Filed: 01/11/2018 Page: 20 of 33 by agreeing to procure health insurance for a Florida resident “who was hospitalized in Florida.” 980 F.2d at 670. Both Ruiz de Molina and Cronin, therefore, involved an agreement to procure insurance to cover a person, property, or risk in the forum state. Here, however, the focus of the agreement was the procurement of insurance for an aircraft while it was being flown in West Africa. In contrast to Ruiz de Molina and Cronin, both the property and risk covered by the insurance policy were outside of the forum state. While the agreement may have contemplated continuing contacts with Aviation One specifically, in that Airborne represented Aviation One’s interests after the crash in the ensuing coverage dispute against the South African insurer, the agreement did not contemplate any “continuing and wide-reaching contacts” in Florida. See Walden, 134 S. Ct. at 1122; Burger King, 471 U.S. at 480. Airborne’s relationship with a forum resident is alone insufficient to establish minimum contacts with the forum. We also note that both the initial and renewal insurance policies had forumselection and choice-of-law clauses providing that the policies were governed by the law of the Republic of South Africa, which had jurisdiction in any dispute under the policy. Those clauses are an indication that Airborne did deliberately affiliate with the forum state and did not reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the United States based on a dispute arising from the policies. See Burger 20 Case: 16-16187 Date Filed: 01/11/2018 Page: 21 of 33 King, 471 U.S. at 481–82 (holding that a choice-of-law clause providing that all disputes would be governed by the law of the forum state “reinforced [the defendant’s] deliberate affiliation with the forum State and the reasonable foreseeability of possible litigation there”). Aviation One stresses that payment by the insurer would have been required in Florida if Airborne had obtained the breach-of-warranty coverage. But the fact that Airborne’s alleged actions caused economic harm in the forum state is not alone sufficient. See Walden, 134 S. Ct. at 1125 (“[M]ere injury to a forum resident is not a sufficient connection to the forum.”). Nor did that harm arise from intentional conduct, such that the Calder effects test would apply. The Calder effects test is satisfied when the defendant commits an intentional tort expressly aimed at the forum that causes a reasonably foreseeable injury in the forum. Louis Vuitton, 736 F.3d at 1356. Aviation One asserts that it stated a claim for intentional breach of fiduciary duty, but we agree with the district court that Aviation One’s claims were brought in negligence. As the court explained, “Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint makes no mention of intentional or fraudulent behavior. To the contrary, Plaintiff alleges that it has been damaged ‘[a]s a result of Airborne’s negligence’ and ‘as a direct consequence of Airborne’s negligence.’” Moreover, the allegedly tortious acts or omissions were taken in South Africa, not 21 Case: 16-16187 Date Filed: 01/11/2018 Page: 22 of 33 Florida. Accordingly, we find the effects test inapplicable in these circumstances. See id. at 1357 n.11 (“[T]he ‘effects test’ applies only in intentional tort cases.”). Finally, we agree with the district court that Airborne’s contacts with Aviation One in Florida after the crash are insufficient to establish minimum contacts with respect to Airborne’s post-crash representation of Aviation One. While Airborne had some direct contacts with Aviation One in Florida after the crash, they were limited to email and telephone calls and related solely to events occurring outside of the United States. Specifically, they concerned procedures and operations taking place in Africa regarding an insurance dispute with a South African insurer over an aircraft that crashed in West Africa. The fact that Airborne communicated with and represented a Florida-based entity in that foreign dispute does not establish that Airborne had “fair warning” that its activities related to this matter would subject it to the jurisdiction of Florida. Having carefully reviewed Airborne’s contacts with Florida, the forum state, we cannot conclude that Airborne purposefully directed activities inside Florida such that it could be considered to have availed itself of the benefits and protections of the forum state. See Louis Vuitton, 736 F.3d at 1355. Airborne contacts with Aviation One, which related to an agreement to procure coverage for an aircraft located in Africa for its operations in Africa by a non-forum-resident 22 Case: 16-16187 Date Filed: 01/11/2018 Page: 23 of 33 third party, were too attenuated to establish “a substantial connection with the forum State.” See Walden, 134 S. Ct. at 1121. Because Aviation One has not shown that Airborne had sufficient minimum contacts with the forum, we also conclude that exercising jurisdiction over Airborne would “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Sloss Indus., 488 F.3d at 925; see Oldfield, 558 F.3d at 1221 (stating that where, as here, the case involves an international defendant, “courts should consider ‘[t]he unique burdens placed upon one who must defend oneself in a foreign legal system’”) (quoting Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Ct., 480 U.S. 102, 114 (1987)). In sum, the district court properly dismissed Airborne for lack of personal jurisdiction.