Facts
- Christel N. Fitzgerald alleged she fell on ice in a parking lot adjacent to a Wal-Mart store in Alexandria, Virginia, on December 21, 2009.
- Fitzgerald sued several Wal-Mart entities and USM, Inc. in Maryland state court, alleging responsibility for the premises and inadequate snow removal.
- USM allegedly contracted with Wal-Mart to perform or oversee snow removal and subcontracted with MCHI, Inc. d/b/a Snow Patrol, Inc. to perform snow removal services at the Alexandria location on the date of the fall.
- The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
- USM filed a third-party complaint against Snow Patrol seeking indemnification and/or contribution for any damages assessed against USM.
- Snow Patrol was a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business in Fairfax, Virginia, and a registered agent in Virginia; those locations, and the Alexandria store, were within 100 miles of the Maryland federal courthouse.
- Snow Patrol moved to dismiss the third-party complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
- Whether the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a Rule 14 third-party defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(B) when the third-party defendant was served within 100 miles of the issuing court.
- Whether exercising jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(1)(B) over Snow Patrol satisfied constitutional due process.
Decision
- The court denied Snow Patrol’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss.
- Rule 4(k)(1)(B) applied because Snow Patrol was joined under Rule 14 and was served within 100 miles of where the summons issued.
- The court concluded Snow Patrol had sufficient contacts within the relevant 100-mile area based on its contract to provide snow removal at the Alexandria store connected to the alleged injury.
- Exercising jurisdiction did not violate due process or offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
- Arguments about Maryland-specific contacts and differences in state statutes of limitations were not grounds to defeat jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(1)(B).
Legal Principles
- Under Rule 12(b)(2), the party invoking jurisdiction bears the burden to show a basis for personal jurisdiction; at the pretrial stage, allegations and reasonable inferences are construed in the proponent’s favor.
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(B) authorizes personal jurisdiction over parties joined under Rule 14 or Rule 19 when served in a U.S. judicial district within 100 miles of the issuing court, even across state lines.
- Even when Rule 4(k)(1)(B) supplies territorial reach for service, the exercise of jurisdiction must still satisfy due process, including minimum contacts and fairness.
- Contacts tied to the transaction or occurrence giving rise to the impleader claim can support due process when the defendant purposefully engaged in activity within the 100-mile area.
Conclusion
The court held that a Virginia snow-removal contractor impleaded under Rule 14 and served within 100 miles of the issuing federal court was subject to personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(1)(B), and that asserting jurisdiction comported with due process given the contractor’s region-based work directly connected to the alleged slip-and-fall.