United States District Court for New Mexico Adopted the Same Analysis
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
FILED 1st JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT Santa Fe County STATE OF NEW MEXICO 8/28/2019 5:03 PM COUNTY OF SANTA FE STEPHEN T. PACHECO CLERK OF THE COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT Leticia Cunningham LINDA HOLLINGER LAMAR, D. MARIA SCHMIDT, as Personal Representative of the Estate of TERRY MASON, Deceased, TAMICA BRUMFIELD, LEE GAINES, and SUSIE GAINES, Plaintiffs, v. No. D-101-CV-2019-00098 BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS TIRE OPERATIONS, LLC, a foreign company which is the successor to BRIDGESTONE/ FIRESTONE NORTH AMERICAN TIRE, LLC; JAG TRANSPORTATION, INC.; ELISARA TAITO; GREYHOUND LINES, INC.; LUIS FELIPE ALVAREZ; and THE NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendants. RESPONSE OPPOSING DEFENDANT BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS TIRE OPS., LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION COME NOW Plaintiffs, LINDA HOLLINGER LAMAR, D. MARIA SCHMIDT, as Personal Representative of the Estate of TERRY MASON, Deceased, and TAMICA BRUMFIELD, by and through their attorneys, The Ammons Law Firm, L.L.P. (Robert E. Ammons, Esq., John Gsanger, Esq., and April A. Strahan, Esq.) and Durham, Pittard & Spalding, L.L.P. (Justin R. Kaufman, Esq., Rosalind B. Bienvenu, Esq., and F. Leighton Durham, Esq.), and respond in opposition to the Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction filed by Defendant Bridgestone Americas Tire Ops., LLC (“Bridgestone”), and request that this motion be denied: I. Background of the Episode-in-Suit1 This case involves a multiple-fatality truck and bus crash on I-40 in McKinley County, New Mexico, caused by the catastrophic failure of a Bridgestone FS591 truck tire mounted on the left side of the steer axle on a Jag Transportation truck. Ex. 1 [Plfs’ Orig. Complaint] ¶¶ 4-7, 23-27, 29-56, 80-88; Ex. 2 [NTSB Rep.]; Ex. 3 [New Mexico Supp. Report]. When the Bridgestone FS591 tire mounted on the left side of the truck's steer axle failed, the truck veered leftward into oncoming westbound traffic and crashed into a passenger-filled Greyhound bus: Ex. 2 [NTSB Rep.]; Ex. 1 [Plfs’ Orig. Complaint] ¶¶ 4-7, 23-27, 29-56, 80-88. The New Mexico Crash Investigation identified only the defective tire as a contributing factor: 1 "Episode-in-suit" is a jurisdictional term of art used by the US Supreme Court, and in tire- failure-induced bus crashes, the episode-in-suit occurs where the bus crash occurred. See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Ops. v. Brown, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011) ("the episode-in-suit, the bus accident, occurred in France" notwithstanding that "the tire alleged to have caused the accident was manufactured and sold" in Turkey). The US Supreme Court has noted the "rapid expansion of tribunals' ability to hear claims against out-of-state defendants when the episode-in- suit occurred in the forum or the defendant purposefully availed itself of the forum." Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746, 753-55 (2014) (emphasis added). 2 Ex. 4 [New Mexico Crash Rep. and Code Sheet]. It is unsurprising that New Mexico's investigation would list Equipment Failure as the First Event in the crash sequence and identify Bridgestone's Defective Tire as the only Apparent Contributing Factor because it is well documented that left front steer axle truck tire failures cause the trucks to veer leftward into oncoming traffic: A key observation from the crash data analysis is the significant linkage between fatalities involving truck tire blowouts and front tire (steering axle) involvement. A strong relationship between type of crash and left- versus right-side front axle blowouts is also noted. Left front blowouts are more frequently associated with multiple vehicle fatal crashes … consistent with general expectations that left front blowouts produce a leftward path disturbance to the truck (potentially into oncoming or adjacent traffic) …. Front axle blowouts in fatal truck crashes nearly always involved a loss of control. Ex. 5 ["Blowout Resistant Tire Study for Commercial Highway Vehicles," UMTRI 2000- 28, Z. Bareket et al.]. While the crash was a foreseeable and unsurprising consequence of the failure of Bridgestone's FS591 tire, the grossly premature nature of that tire failure itself so shortly after its manufacture and after so little road use is an extreme and unforeseeable departure from what any consumer would expect. 3 New Mexico's investigation into the catastrophic bus crash revealed that the failed Bridgestone FS591 tire's Department of Transportation Code indicates the tire was manufactured in the 17th week (i.e., in April) of 2018, which is only a few months before the multiple-fatality bus catastrophe in August. Ex. 3 [New Mexico Supp. Report] p. 6. Jag Transportation's receipt for purchase of the failed Bridgestone FS591 tire confirms that this tire was sold on May 29, and not installed until May 30, and so the tire had only been in service for three months when it fell apart and caused the August bus crash: Ex. 6 [Jag Transportation receipt]. Because the episode-in-suit occurred in New Mexico, the Plaintiffs next confirmed Bridgestone was registered to do business in New Mexico and had numerous purposeful contacts with New Mexico, and with those facts established, pursued their claims against Bridgestone in this New Mexico forum. Ex. 1 [Plfs’ Orig. Complaint] ¶¶ 4-7, 23-27, 29- 56, 80-88; Ex. 7 [Stipulation] ¶¶ 1-3. In order to expedite matters before the Court, 4 Plaintiffs and Bridgestone have entered into a Stipulation of facts undisputed for the purposes of the Court's evaluation of Bridgestone's motion to dismiss. See Ex. 7 [Stipulation]. II. Facts and Law Establishing General Jurisdiction by Consent over Bridgestone Bridgestone has stipulated to certain jurisdictional facts, and the Plaintiffs have also pleaded other facts establishing general jurisdiction-by-consent over Bridgestone, which has not disproved those facts that consequently must be accepted as true for the purposes of this motion:2 • Bridgestone voluntarily registered to do business in New Mexico in compliance with the Business Corporation Act ("the Act"). Ex. 1 [Plfs’ Orig. Complaint] ¶ 4; Ex. 7 [Stipulation] ¶ 1. • In this case, Bridgestone was served with process in New Mexico through its registered agent voluntarily appointed by Bridgestone to accept process in New Mexico pursuant to the Act. Ex. 1 [Plfs’ Orig. Complaint] ¶ 4; Ex. 7 [Stipulation] ¶ 2. • Bridgestone has been registered to do business in New Mexico under its current name and with an agent appointed to accept service in New Mexico for a decade (predating the design and manufacture of the tire), and Bridgestone has also been registered in New Mexico under its former names going back at least two decades. Ex. 7 [Stipulation] ¶ 3. • Bridgestone has purposefully availed itself of millions of dollars in revenue from New Mexico by distributing and selling its tires into the stream of commerce in New Mexico, including FS591 tires like the failed tire at issue. Ex. 1 [Plfs’ Orig. Complaint] ¶ 4; see also Ex. 7 [Stipulation] ¶¶ 3, 5, 15, 17-19. • This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendant Bridgestone because it registered to transact business in the state of New Mexico pursuant to Article 17 of the Business Corporations Act, by which Defendant Bridgestone consented to 2 When determining whether the court has personal jurisdiction over a party, the court reviews the complaint against the nonresident party and "accepts the facts therein as true." Grover v. Stechel, 2002-NMCA-049, ¶ 8, 132 N.M. 140, 143, 45 P.3d 80, 83. 5 be subject to the same duties, restrictions, penalties and liabilities imposed upon domestic corporations, including consenting to the duties and liabilities inherent in submitting to the jurisdiction of New Mexico courts for causes of action (such as this cause of action) which arose in this state during the time Defendant Bridgestone was authorized to transact business in this state; Ex. 1 [Plfs’ Orig. Complaint] ¶ 6. The New Mexico Court of Appeals (affirming this Court) has recently addressed the legal implication of these jurisdictional facts as establishing that Bridgestone has consented to general jurisdiction by registering to do business in New Mexico: [C]onsent to jurisdiction by compliance with a state's registration statute was acknowledged in 1917 by the United States Supreme Court in Pennsylvania Fire, 243 U.S. at 95, 37 S.Ct. 344. … Whether compliance with a state registration statute constitutes consent to jurisdiction in the state depends on the language of the statute itself or the construction of it by a state court. Brieno v. Paccar, Inc., No. 17-cv-867 SCY/KMB, 2018 WL 3675234, at *2 (D.N.M. Aug. 2, 2018) …. We therefore look to our cases constructing the Act. In Werner, this Court held “the [L]egislature intended to confer state-court jurisdiction over registered foreign corporations through Section 53-17-11 [of the Act].” 1993-NMCA-112, ¶ 11, 116 N.M. 229, 861 P.2d 270. It further held that the defendant there had consented to jurisdiction in New Mexico by registering pursuant to the Act. Id. ¶¶ 11, 14. … Consistent with Pennsylvania Fire, then, we apply Werner to the facts here. Bridgestone does not deny that it is registered in New Mexico as required by the Act. Hence, under Werner, Bridgestone consented to jurisdiction and was on notice that it should “anticipate being haled into court” in New Mexico. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980)…. Bridgestone consented to general jurisdiction in New Mexico courts by registering to do business here and appointing an agent for service of process under the Act. We therefore affirm the district court's denial of Bridgestone's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Chavez v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, 2018 WL 7046630, at *3–4 (N.M.