United States District Court, D. Nevada
MIRANDA M. DU, Judge
case concerns a contract dispute between a manufacturer of
cleaning supplies for oil refineries and a refinery services
company. Before the Court is Defendant Petrochem Field
Services, Inc.'s (“Petrochem”) Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
(“Motion”). (ECF No. 7.) The Court has reviewed
Plaintiff EnvTech, Inc.'s (“EnvTech”)
response (ECF No. 11) and Petrochem's reply (ECF No. 16).
For the reasons discussed below, Petrochem's Motion to
Dismiss is granted.
initially filed its complaint in the Second Judicial District
Court of Washoe County on December 22, 2016. (ECF No. 1-1.)
Petrochem then removed the case to this Court on February 6,
2017, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a). (ECF No. 1.) The following facts are taken
from the complaint (ECF No. 1-1).
is a Nevada-based company that produces and sells chemicals
used to clean oil and gas refineries. Petrochem is a
Texas-based company that installs, modifies, and cleans
towers and vessels at refineries. Petrochem began purchasing
chemicals from EnvTech in 2010 and continued to do so until
2014. During that period, Petrochem would contact EnvTech in
Nevada in order to create a purchase order. EnvTech would
then invoice Petrochem and, most often,  deliver the
chemicals. Generally, Petrochem would pay approximately half
of the cost of the chemicals up front. Shortly after
delivery, Petrochem would then pay EnvTech the remaining
April of 2014, Petrochem ordered $575, 900 worth of
chemicals. The purchase order was officially placed on May 7,
2014, and specified that payment was due within “net 30
days.” Petrochem made a partial payment of $287, 980.
In early July 2014, before paying off the outstanding
balance, Petrochem placed an additional order for $248, 980
worth of chemicals. The order was memorialized in an email
from Paul Stanco at EnvTech to several employees at Petrochem
on July 14, 2014, and an invoice was created on that date for
the order. Shortly thereafter, EnvTech shipped the chemicals
out of Nevada to Petrochem. Petrochem did not object to the
chemicals it received for the May 7, 2014, invoice or the
July 14, 2014, invoice.
accepting these orders, Petrochem never paid EnvTech the
outstanding balances of $287, 920 (May 7, 2014, order) or
$248, 980 (July 14, 2014, order). EnvTech is now suing
Petrochem in order to recover the outstanding amounts owed
and any accompanying damages.
complaint asserts three claims for relief: (1) breach of
contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing; and (3) unjust enrichment. (ECF No. 1-1 at
opposing a defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff bears the burden of
establishing that jurisdiction is proper. Boschetto v.
Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008). Where, as
here, the defendant's motions are based on written
materials rather than an evidentiary hearing, “the
plaintiff need only make ‘a prima facie showing of
jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to
dismiss.'” Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon
& Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151,
1154 (9th Cir. 2006)). The plaintiff cannot “simply
rest on the bare allegations of its complaint, ” but
uncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be taken as
true. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374
F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Amba Mktg.
Sys., Inc. v. Jobar Int'l, Inc., 551 F.2d
784, 787 (9th Cir. 1977)). The court “may not assume
the truth of allegations in a pleading which are contradicted
by affidavit, ” Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech.
Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1284 (9th Cir. 1977), but
it may resolve factual disputes in the plaintiff's favor.
Pebble Beach Co., 453 F.3d at 1154.
two-part analysis governs whether a court retains personal
jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. “First, the
exercise of jurisdiction must satisfy the requirements of the
applicable state long-arm statute.” Chan v.
Soc'y Expeditions, 39 F.3d 1398, 1404 (9th Cir.
1994). Since “Nevada's long-arm statute, NRS
[§] 14.065, reaches the limits of due process set by the
United States Constitution, ” the Court moves on to the
second part of the analysis. See Baker v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 999 P.2d 1020, 1023
(Nev. 2000). “Second, the exercise of jurisdiction must
comport with federal due process.” Chan, 39
F.3d at 1404-05. “Due process requires that nonresident
defendants have certain minimum contacts with the forum state
so that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend
traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.” Id. at 1405 (citing Int'l
Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). Courts
analyze this constitutional question with reference to two
forms of jurisdiction: general and specific jurisdiction.
argues that this Court has specific
jurisdiction over Petrochem because Petrochem
purposefully consummated transactions with Nevada, thereby
having several contacts with the state, and EnvTech's
breach-of-contract claims arise ...