Court Opinion

ID: 9393558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-10 17:00:51.051871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:53.963413
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                              ____________

                                    No. 22-1364
                                      ______

                              ROBERTO C. MARTINEZ;
                              MIGUELINA MARTINEZ,
                                      Appellants
                                         v.

                   UNION OFFICINE MECCANICHE S.P.A.;
                          ABC CORP. NOS. 1–5;
                          JOHN DOES NOS. 1–5
                            _______________
                  On Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of New Jersey
                              (D.C. No. 2-20-cv-07327)
                   District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton
                                    ____________

                              Argued: January 11, 2023

              Before: JORDAN, PHIPPS, and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

                                (Filed: May 10, 2023)
                                    ____________

Sean T. Payne              [ARGUED]
Richard M. Winograd        [ARGUED]
GINARTE GALLARDO GONZALEZ & WINOGRAD
400 Market Street
Newark, NJ 07105
     Counsel for Appellants

Alexander Pencu                 [ARGUED]
Michael B. Sloan
MEISTER SEELIG & FEIN
125 Park Avenue
7th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Jeffrey Schreiber
MEISTER SEELIG & FEIN
4E&F Auer Court
Williamsburg Commons
East Brunswick, NJ 08816
       Counsel for Appellee

                                       ___________

                                        OPINION*
                                       ___________

PHIPPS, Circuit Judge.

       In 2019, while cleaning his employer’s plastic calender machine in New Jersey,

Roberto C. Martinez got his hand caught between the rollers, and it was severely injured.
Although the accident took place in New Jersey, the machine was designed and

manufactured in Italy. New Jersey, through its long-arm statute, see N.J. Ct. R. 4:4–4,
allows personal jurisdiction to the maximum extent permitted by the Fourteenth

Amendment’s Due Process Clause. And Martinez along with his wife sued the Italian

manufacturer in New Jersey alleging three state-law claims in their amended complaint:

defective design, inadequate warning labels, and loss of consortium. The District Court

granted the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss the Martinezes’ claims for lack of personal

jurisdiction. Through a timely appeal of that final order, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the

Martinezes contest the District Court’s ruling, which, on de novo review, we will affirm

for the reasons that follow.
       In response to a motion to dismiss for a lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff

bears the burden of establishing such jurisdiction. See Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine,

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

                                              2
Inc., 566 F.3d 324, 330 (3d Cir. 2009). That requires evidence of “minimum contacts”

with the forum state such that maintaining the suit would not “offend ‘traditional notions

of fair play and substantial justice.’” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316

(1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). Here, the Martinezes do

not attempt to meet that burden through general jurisdiction – which would require

showing that the machine’s manufacturer, Union Officine Meccaniche S.P.A. (‘Union’),

was “essentially at home” in New Jersey. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v.

Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011). Rather, they argue that Union was within New

Jersey’s specific jurisdiction.

       When, as here, a district court does not hold an evidentiary hearing in response to

a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction on the
written record. See 5B Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice &

Procedure § 1351 (3d ed. updated Apr. 2022). For specific jurisdiction, such a showing

has two necessary components. The first is the out-of-state defendant’s purposeful

availment of the forum. See Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958) (“[I]t is

essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails

itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the

benefits and protections of its laws.”). The second is a “strong relationship” between “the

defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” Hepp v. Facebook, 14 F.4th 204, 208 (3d Cir.

2021) (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1028
(2021)). If the written record, construed in favor of the plaintiff, see Metcalfe, 566 F.3d

at 330–31, does not support those two components of a prima facie showing, then it is

unnecessary to examine whether any “rare” and “compelling” circumstances would

                                              3
render the exercise of personal jurisdiction unfair. O’Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co.,

496 F.3d 312, 324–25 (3d Cir. 2007).

       For the first requirement, the record does not establish that Union purposefully

availed itself of New Jersey before or while selling the machine. In the specific context

of the transmission of goods into a forum, purposeful availment requires the defendant to

“have targeted the forum” deliberately. J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S.

873, 882 (2011) (plurality); see also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475–

76 (1985) (explaining that, as a general matter, a defendant purposefully avails itself of a

forum by deliberately engaging in significant activities there, or alternatively, by creating

continuing obligations with forum residents). But before and while selling the machine,

Union did not engage “in conduct purposefully directed at New Jersey.” J. McIntyre,
564 U.S. at 886. The record does not demonstrate that Union ever advertised its products

in New Jersey. And of the estimated 700 calender machines that Union manufactured

since 1950, only this one went to New Jersey. Also, the decision to place the machine in

New Jersey was not made by Union but rather by Martinez’s employer, Primex Plastics

Corporation, which selected the New Jersey facility over its facilities in other states. At

most, an independent sales agent based in the United Kingdom visited Primex’s New

Jersey plant to discuss Primex purchasing the machine. But that is too tenuous a

connection to constitute an intentional targeting of the New Jersey market by Union.

       After the machine’s sale and placement in New Jersey, Union increased its
contacts there. It sent representatives to New Jersey to oversee installation. Later, its

representatives traveled to New Jersey to train Primex and maintain the machine.

Sometimes those representatives stayed in New Jersey for weeks at a time. And one time

after the installation, Union’s chief executive officer visited the Primex facility in New

                                              4
Jersey. In addition to those physical contacts, after the sale, Union representatives began

to communicate with Primex by email, telephone, and remote access software.

Regardless of whether those post-sale contacts were promised with the machine’s sale or

were efforts to nurture a customer relationship, they amount to deliberate targeting by

Union of New Jersey for its business. Thus, after the sale of the calender machine, Union

purposefully availed itself of New Jersey.

       But even with that post-sale purposeful availment, there is not a “strong

relationship” between “the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” Hepp, 14 F.4th at

208 (quoting Ford, 141 S. Ct. at 1028). The first claim – for defective design under the

New Jersey Products Liability Act, see N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C–2 – lacks such a strong

relationship. Although “some relationships will support jurisdiction without a causal
showing,” Ford, 141 S. Ct. at 1026, to support the exercise of specific jurisdiction,

Union’s actions in New Jersey, which are not alleged to have caused any of the claimed

injuries, had to have included more than mere efforts to keep its one customer in New

Jersey happy. That is especially so here where those efforts did not involve core

characteristics of the products liability claim: the design and manufacture of the machine

or any of its parts in New Jersey. Nor did Union advertise or seek other customers in

New Jersey, and it has not opened a permanent office there. Thus, Union’s contacts in

relation to this claim and the forum did not suffice for specific jurisdiction. For similar

reasons, Union’s contacts with New Jersey also foreclose the exercise of specific
jurisdiction over the Martinezes’ claim concerning the machine’s alleged dangerousness

and inadequate warnings, in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, see N.J.

Stat. Ann. § 56:8–2. Finally, the loss-of-consortium claim adds nothing to Union’s

                                              5
contacts with New Jersey, and without personal jurisdiction over Union for the other two

claims, this count was correctly dismissed as well.

       In advocating in favor of New Jersey’s personal jurisdiction over Union, the

Martinezes rely heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana

Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021). In that opinion, the Supreme

Court explained that the forum state in each of two consolidated cases could exert

personal jurisdiction over an automobile manufacturer, Ford Motor Company, for tort

claims prompted by vehicle crashes in each forum even though Ford had not

manufactured, designed, or sold either vehicle in either forum. Id. at 1023–24. But the

nature of Ford’s contacts with each forum drove that outcome. Ford engaged in “wide

ranging-promotional activities, including television, print, online, and direct-mail
advertisements.” Id. at 1022. Ford shipped the same model vehicles to each forum for

sale, and its network of dealers “offer[ed] an array of maintenance and repair services.”

Id. at 1022–23, 1028. Ford also encouraged a resale market for its products and provided

“original parts to auto supply stores and repair shops across the country.” Id. at 1022–23.

For these reasons, the Supreme Court concluded that Ford “systematically served a

market” in the forum states. Id. at 1028. But Union is not Ford. The nature of its

contacts with New Jersey pale in comparison to Ford’s contacts with the forum states,

and Union cannot be said to systematically serve a market in New Jersey. Thus, under

Ford, Union’s post-sale purposeful availment of New Jersey did not result in a strong
relationship between Union, New Jersey, and the claims the Martinezes now bring.

       For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

                                             6