United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
Honorable Richard A. Jones, United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court on Defendants Omni Serv Limited
(“Omni”), Air Serv Corporation (“Air
Serv”), and ABM Industries' (“ABM”)
(collectively, “Omni Defendants”) Motion for
Reconsideration. Dkt. # 48. British Airways and Plaintiff
filed a response. Dkt. ## 51, 52.
Court denied Omni Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction. Its reasoning was based on Omni
Defendants' failure to raise this defense when answering
British Airways, PLC's (“British Airways”)
cross-claims. Omni Defendants now seek reconsideration of
that Order as to Plaintiff's claims, over which Omni
Defendants asserted a personal jurisdiction defense.
Motion for Reconsideration
for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h)(1).
“The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the
absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or
a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not
have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable
Defendants move the Court to reconsider its Order denying the
motion to dismiss. Dkt. # 47. Omni Defendants argue that the
Court committed error in denying the motion on behalf of
Plaintiff's claims versus British Airways'
cross-claims. Dkt. # 48. Omni Defendants aver that they
preserved their personal jurisdiction defense against
Plaintiff's claims, and therefore this Court necessarily
needed to analyze whether it could assert personal
jurisdiction over these defendants. Id.; see
also Dkt. # 16 at 8 (in answering Plaintiff's
Complaint, Omni Defendants defended by stating that
“[t]he Court lacks personal jurisdiction over one or
more or all of the Defendants.”). The Court agrees. The
Court finds that it risks committing error were it to
continue with this litigation without first analyzing whether
it can exercise personal jurisdiction over Omni Defendants.
For this reason the Court GRANTS the motion
for reconsideration. Dkt. # 48. The Court will analyze the
personal jurisdiction issue below.
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
has the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction.
Ziegler v. Indian River County, 64 F.3d 470, 473
(9th Cir. 1995). “It is well established that where the
district court relies solely on affidavits and discovery
materials, the plaintiff need only establish a prima
facie case of jurisdiction.” Rano v. Sipa
Press, Inc., 987 F.2d 580, 587 n.3 (9th Cir. 1993).
Washington's long-arm statute, RCW 4.28.185,
“extends jurisdiction to the limit of federal due
process.” Shute v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 113
Wn. 2d 763, 771, 783 P.2d 78 (1989). The due process clause
grants the court jurisdiction over defendants who have
“certain minimum contacts . . . such that maintenance
of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of
fair play and substantial justice.'” Int'l
Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
does not specifically argue that the Court has general
jurisdiction over Air Serv or its subsidiaries. British
Airways does argue this point, though the Court has already
found that the Court has jurisdiction over Omni Defendants
for purposes of British Airways' cross-claims. The Court
will nonetheless analyze whether it has general jurisdiction
over Air Serv for purposes of Plaintiff's claims.
general jurisdiction to exist, the defendant must engage in
“continuous and systematic general business contacts
that ‘approximate physical presence' in the forum
state.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor
Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations
omitted). “This is an exacting standard, as it should
be, because a finding of general jurisdiction permits a
defendant to be haled ...