Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. All Coast Logistics USA, LLC

Certain Underwriters · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · April 2, 2025 · No. 24-cv-00523-JSC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s motion for default judgment against All Coast Logistics USA, LLC. The court held that Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction, rejecting arguments based on purposeful availment and pendent personal jurisdiction in the Carmack Amendment action.

Holdings

  1. Before ruling on a motion for default judgment, the court must independently examine its jurisdiction over the parties, and a default judgment entered without personal jurisdiction is void.
  2. The allegations did not establish general personal jurisdiction over All Coast because All Coast was organized under Florida law and had its principal place of business in Florida, and Plaintiff did not argue otherwise.
  3. Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction because the complaint's allegations that All Coast issued a bill of lading for delivery to California, hired S-Cue, and knew the shipment would go to California did not establish purposeful availment or a continuing commitment between All Coast and California.
  4. Pendent personal jurisdiction did not provide a basis for jurisdiction over All Coast because Plaintiff asserted only one claim against All Coast and did not identify another claim over which the court already had personal jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the court could enter default judgment without an adequate showing of personal jurisdiction over All Coast.
  2. Whether the allegations established general or specific personal jurisdiction over All Coast in California.
  3. Whether pendent personal jurisdiction could supply jurisdiction over All Coast where Plaintiff asserted only one Carmack Amendment claim against that defendant.

Disposition

denied

Cases Cited (15)

  • In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999)(followed)
  • RingCentral, Inc. v. Quimby, 781 F. Supp. 2d 1007, 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2011)(followed)
  • In re Boon Global Ltd., 923 F.3d 643, 650 (9th Cir. 2019)(followed)
  • Dole Food Co., Inc. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Walden v. Fiore, Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014)(followed)
  • Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137 (2014)(followed)
  • Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operation, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)(followed)
  • Global Commodities Trading Group, Inc. v. Beneficio de Arroz Choloma, S.A., 972 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2020)(followed)
  • Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • Davis v. Cranfield Aerospace Sols., Ltd., 71 F.4th 1154, 1162-1163 (9th Cir. 2023)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 15.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…