Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

West Wind Air LLC v. Thrush Aircraft, Inc., 5:16-cv-274-DPM. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas Number: infdco20180808710 Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 07, 2018
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . Thrush asks the Court again to reconsider its previous Order denying Thrush's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. No. 36. ChrisAir has informally advised the Court that, instead of filing a response to the new motion, it stands by its previous filings on the Thrush-jurisdiction issue. Having considered Thrush's arguments and the developing law, and taking the jurisdictional facts in ChrisAir's favor, the Court denies the motion
More

ORDER

Thrush asks the Court again to reconsider its previous Order denying Thrush's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. No. 36. ChrisAir has informally advised the Court that, instead of filing a response to the new motion, it stands by its previous filings on the Thrush-jurisdiction issue. Having considered Thrush's arguments and the developing law, and taking the jurisdictional facts in ChrisAir's favor, the Court denies the motion to reconsider.

As explained in Order No. 45 at 1, the facts in Bristol-Myers Squibb are different than those in this stream-of-commerce case. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California, 137 S.Ct. 1773, 582 U.S. ___ (2017). And the new cases Thrush cites — none of which bind this Court — don't alter the Court's conclusion that Thrush has sufficient minimum contacts with Arkansas. Thrush uses those cases to argue its key point that a defendant's general contacts with the forum that are unrelated to the underlying case aren't enough to support specific jurisdiction. That's correct. Bristol-Myers Squibb, 137 S. Ct. at 1781. But Thrush's narrow view of which contacts "relate to" ChrisAir's claims eliminates that element from the jurisdictional analysis. This case "arises from" Thrush's sale of an airplane to Chris Air in Arkansas through Mid-Continent. No. 36 at 6. Beyond that, Thrush also has Arkansas contacts that "relate to" this case —Thrush's targeting the state through its regional dealer network—because, as the Court has said, that network is the only way any Thrush product reaches any Arkansas customer. Ibid. Eighth Circuit precedent, which this Court must follow absent binding contrary authority, supports this conclusion. E.g., Vandelune v. 4B Elevator Components Unlimited, 148 F.3d 943, 947-948 (8th Cir. 1998). Notwithstanding ChrisAir's citation of the Arkansas Court of Appeals' decision in Lawson v. Simmons Sporting Goods, Inc., 2017 Ark.App. 44, 511 S.W.3d 883 (2017), this Court did not rely on that decision. The 180° turn in that nonstream-of-commerce case, post Bristol-Myers Squibb, does not affect this Court's analysis in this case. 2018 Ark.App. 343, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2018).

Motion, No. 108, denied. For the reasons stated in No. 45 at 2, the Court also denies Thrush's alternative request for leave to seek interlocutory review.

So Ordered.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer