WARREN W. EGINTON, Senior District Judge.
In this action, plaintiff Louise Looney filed suit against JAB Automotive and SpeeDee Worldwide Corporation, alleging a negligence claim pursuant to the Connecticut Product Liability Act ("CPLA") in connection with a motor vehicle accident. SpeeDee filed third party complaints against Mevotech and another corporation BWP Distributors, Inc. ("BWP"), asserting claims for contribution and indemnity. Mevotech has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss will be granted.
The following are the relevant jurisdictional facts that are reflected in the allegations of the complaint and exhibits attached to the briefs.
Third party defendant is a privately held Canadian corporation with a principal place of business in Toronto, Canada.
In Rhode Island, defendant SpeeDee installed the alleged defective control arm into the vehicle that was later in the accident at issue in this case. The part had been ordered from Carquest Auto Parts of Pawtucket, a BWP distributor located in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. The control arm was shipped from defendant Movotech's Canadian location to BWP's distribution center in Massachusetts.
At the time relevant to this action, Mevotech had placed advertisements in hard copy publications with a national circulation. Mevotech maintained a website and an online publication accessible to the public where individuals could view Mevotech's products, although Mevotech products could not be purchased online.
Mevotech was not registered in the state of Connecticut, did not have a certificate of authority to do business in Connecticut, and did not pay taxes in Connecticut.
Mevotech has made sales to Connecticut distributors. However, shipments to Connecticut made up approximately .13% of Mevotech's overall sales in 2011; .17% in 2012; .12% in 2013; and .18% through April 30, 2014. Mevotech did not have employees residing or domiciled in Connecticut.
To survive a pretrial motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant.
If jurisdiction is permissible under the long arm statute, the court then determines whether the exercise of jurisdiction under the statute comports with the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
"Where the claim arises out of, or relates to, the defendant's contacts with the forum—i.e., specific jurisdiction—minimum contacts exist where the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in the forum and could foresee being haled into court there." Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez &
Finally, a court must also determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction comports with traditional due process notions of fair play and substantial justice or whether it is reasonable under the circumstances of a particular case.
Mevotech first argues that Speedee, as a non-resident defendant without a usual place of business in Connecticut, cannot sue a foreign corporation on the basis of Connecticut's long-arm statute, Connecticut General Statutes § 33-929(f), which provides:
Mevotech asserts further that personal jurisdiction in Connecticut is improper in accordance with the long-arm statute and the constitutional standards.
Regardless of whether SpeeDee may avail itself of the Connecticut long-arm statute or whether personal jurisdiction is permitted by that statute, the Court cannot assert personal jurisdiction over Mevotech due to the constitutional constraint of the Fourteenth Amendment. Speedee does not seek to assert specific jurisdiction and cannot meet the threshold standard for a finding of general jurisdiction. Relevant to general jurisdiction, a defendant corporation's affiliations with the state must be so continuous and systematic as to render the corporation "essentially at home in the forum State."
In this instance, Mevotech is not incorporated, headquartered or registered to do business in Connecticut; it maintains no facilities in Connecticut; and it retains no employees in Connecticut. The percentage of Mevotech's Connecticut sales is significantly smaller than that of Daimler's California sales. With substantially less significant contacts with the forum State than those at issue in
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss [doc. #59] is GRANTED.