United States District Court, D. Kansas
STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a/s/o N140DA, LLC, Plaintiff,
TEXTRON AVIATION, INC., et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. BROOMES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case comes before the court on Defendant TAT
Technologies' Ltd. (“TAT”) motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Doc. 42.) The motion has
been fully briefed and is ripe for decision. (Docs. 50, 51.)
Procedural History and Relevant Facts
State National Insurance Company filed this action as
subrogee of N140DA, LLC. (Doc. 5 at 1.) The action was
originally filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma.
Plaintiff brought this action against Textron, Limco
Airepair and TAT. Prior to service on TAT,
Plaintiff and Textron agreed to transfer this action to this
district. (Doc. 27.)
amended complaint, which was originally filed while the case
was pending in Oklahoma, alleges that TAT is a foreign
company with its principal place of business in Israel. Limco
is a domestic corporation with its principal place of
business in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and is a licensed distributor
for TAT. Textron is incorporated in Kansas and has its
principal place of business in Wichita, Kansas. Plaintiff
further alleges that venue is proper in Oklahoma because a
substantial part of the events at issue occurred in Tulsa
has alleged product liability claims due to an alleged
failure of a heat exchanger (“precooler”) that
was installed on a Citation Model 525A, serial number 525A140
(the “aircraft”) by Textron. Plaintiff alleges
that the precooler was “designed, manufactured, and
marketed by Defendant TAT and distributed by Defendant
Limco.” (Doc. 5 at 5.) Textron manufactured the
aircraft and sold it in new condition to N140DA, LLC in 2003.
The amended complaint alleges that Textron and TAT
“have sufficient contacts with the State of Oklahoma to
be subject to the jurisdiction of this court due to the
placing of their products into the stream of commerce within
the state of Oklahoma.” (Doc. 5 at 2.)
December 9, 2014, there were significant damages to the
aircraft, which allegedly occurred in Tulsa, due to the
failure of the precooler in the right wing. (Doc. 5 at 3-5,
Exh. 1.) Plaintiff paid for the costs to repair the aircraft.
Plaintiff brings this action to recover its damages.
moves to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). On a Rule
12(b)(2) motion to dismiss, Plaintiff must make a prima facie
showing that the court has personal jurisdiction over
defendants. Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Continental Motors,
Inc., 877 F.3d 895, 903 (10th Cir. 2017). The court must
accept the allegations in the amended complaint as true and
resolve all factual disputes in Plaintiff's favor
notwithstanding contrary positions by TAT. Id.
obtain personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in
a diversity action, a plaintiff must show that jurisdiction
is legitimate under the laws of the forum state and that the
exercise of jurisdiction does not offend the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” TH Agriculture
& Nutrition, LLC v. Ace European Group, Ltd., 488
F.3d 1282, 1286-87 (10th Cir. 2007). Because the Kansas
long-arm statute is construed liberally to allow jurisdiction
to the full extent permitted by due process, the court
ordinarily proceeds directly to the constitutional issue.
Id. at 1287 (citing OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal
Ins. Co. of Canada, 149 F.3d 1086, 1087 (10th Cir.
Due Process Clause protects an individual's liberty
interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a
forum with which he has established no meaningful
‘contacts ties, or relations.'” Burger
King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72 (1985).
Therefore a “court may exercise personal jurisdiction
over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist
minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum
state.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v.
Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 (1979). The requisite minimum
contacts may be established under one of two theories:
“specific jurisdiction” or “general
jurisdiction.” If the requisite minimum contacts are
met, the court proceeds to determine whether the
“assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with
fair play and substantial justice.” Old Republic
Ins. Co., 877 F.3d at 903.
contends that the amended complaint establishes specific
jurisdiction in this matter. (Doc. 50 at 4.) Specific
jurisdiction applies when the suit arises out of or relates
to a defendant's contacts with the forum state. Monge
v. RG Petro-Machinery (Grp.) Co. Ltd., 701 F.3d 598, 613
(10th Cir. 2012). To satisfy specific jurisdiction,
Plaintiff's injury “must arise out of or relate to
activities that [defendants] purposefully directed at
residents of the forum.” Id. at 617. Plaintiff
argues that this action arises out of TAT's contacts with
Kansas because TAT “sold the precoolers to a Kansas
manufacturer for purposes of them being incorporated into
aircrafts manufactured and sold in Kansas.” (Doc. 50 at
argues in its motion that Plaintiff's amended complaint
makes no assertion that personal jurisdiction is proper in
this court and that no facts relate to any activities TAT
undertook in Kansas. (Doc. 42 at 2.) TAT's motion
includes an affidavit which attests to the fact that TAT does
not have any operations in Kansas, had no interaction with
the purchaser, does not maintain an office in Kansas, does
not advertise or solicit business in Kansas and has no assets
or accounts in Kansas. Plaintiff's brief in response to
TAT's motion largely cites to an opinion by Judge
Lungstrum in Federal Insurance Company v. TAT. (Doc.
50 at 4-5.)
stated by TAT in its reply brief, a finding of specific
jurisdiction is based on the facts in a particular case.
See Old Republic Ins. Co., 877 F.3d at 903
(“specific (case-linked) jurisdiction”). In this
matter, Plaintiff argues that there are sufficient contacts
with Kansas due to TAT's actions (or, alternatively, the
actions of Limco as TAT's wholly owned subsidiary).
However, the amended complaint only refers to Kansas with
respect to the allegations that Textron (Cessna) is
incorporated in Kansas and has a principal place of business
in Wichita, Kansas. The amended complaint is silent on issues
that may tend ...