Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee grants Mark McKinney and Pleasurecraft Marine Engine Co.’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismisses the claims against them without prejudice. The court holds that the defendants’ limited contacts with Tennessee and the plaintiff’s residence in Tennessee do not establish purposeful availment or otherwise support specific jurisdiction. The court grants in part the plaintiff’s motion to amend, denies the remaining motions as moot, lifts the discovery stay, and orders the plaintiff to file a revised Second Amended Complaint by May 21, 2026.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Tennessee could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants Pleasurecraft Marine Engine Co. and Mark McKinney under Rule 12(b)(2).
- Whether the alleged injury to a Tennessee plaintiff and McKinney's visits to Tennessee established purposeful availment and a constitutionally sufficient connection with Tennessee.
- Whether the court should grant Blue Sky leave to file a revised Second Amended Complaint.
- Whether Axial's motion to dismiss based on venue became moot when Axial conceded that the proposed amendment resolved the asserted venue issue.
- Whether Blue Sky's motion to strike an argument raised in a reply brief remained justiciable after the court dismissed the claims on personal-jurisdiction grounds.
Holdings
- The court lacked specific personal jurisdiction over Pleasurecraft Marine Engine Co. and Mark McKinney because Blue Sky failed to show that either defendant purposefully availed itself of Tennessee, that the claims arose from activities in Tennessee, or that the defendants' conduct had a substantial enough connection with Tennessee to make jurisdiction reasonable.
- Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-2-214(a)(2) does not eliminate the constitutional due-process requirement for personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.
- Blue Sky's motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint was granted in part, subject to revision removing the claims and defendants dismissed by the order and making no substantive revisions to the allegations or claims against Axial.
Key quotations
“Due process requires that a defendant be haled into court in a forum State based on his own affiliation with the State, not based on the ‘random, fortuitous, or attenuated’ contacts he makes by interacting with other persons affiliated with the State.” (§ II.a)
“The proper question is not where the plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect but whether the defendant’s conduct connects him to the forum in a meaningful way.” (§ II.c)
“Without this essential showing, Plaintiff cannot show that specific jurisdiction is proper over these Defendants.” (§ II.c)
Factual background
Blue Sky Marine, Axial Drive Systems, and Robert Nutt entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement in 2021 under which Axial acquired assets and intellectual property related to a marine pod-drive system and undertook development, commercialization, royalty, and patent-related obligations. Blue Sky alleged that Axial delegated performance to Pleasurecraft Marine Engine Co. and its president, Mark McKinney, who allegedly advised against further development, testing, commercialization, and patent efforts, thereby inducing Axial's breach. McKinney's relevant contacts with Tennessee consisted principally of two visits before execution of the APA on behalf of Pleasurecraft and one later visit on behalf of Axial; neither McKinney nor Pleasurecraft maintained operations or facilities in Tennessee.
Procedural history
Blue Sky Marine filed a diversity action arising from agreements concerning development and commercialization of a marine pod-drive system. After the defendants filed motions to dismiss, Blue Sky filed a First Amended Complaint and then sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. The court dismissed the claims against Mark McKinney and Pleasurecraft Marine Engine Co. without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction, granted leave to amend in part, denied the motion to strike as moot, denied Axial's motion to dismiss as moot, and lifted the stay of discovery.