Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Caravan Facilities Management, LLC v. Hausrath Building Maintenance, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division

June 20, 2019

CARAVAN FACILITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
HAUSRATH LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, INC, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

          THOMAS L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge

         On April 3, 2019, Plaintiff Caravan Facilities Management, LLC filed a complaint in the Saginaw County Circuit Court against Defendant Hausrath Landscape Maintenance, INC. ECF No. 1 at PageID.7-14. Plaintiff claims that Defendant has continued to bill Plaintiff for services under an allegedly terminated contract and seeks declaratory relief. Id. On May 6, 2019, Defendant removed the case to the federal district court. ECF No. 1. On May 14, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). ECF No. 3. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted.

         I.

         A.

         Plaintiff is a Michigan limited liability company with its principal place of business in the County of Saginaw, Michigan. PageID.54. Plaintiff is also registered to conduct business in the State of New York. Id. Defendant is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in the City of Amherst, New York. Id. Defendant is not registered to conduct business in the State of Michigan. Id.

         According to Plaintiff's complaint, Plaintiff was hired by General Motors (“GM”) to conduct maintenance and cleaning services at GM's Tonawanda, New York Engine Plant. PageID.8. Pursuant to its contract with GM, one of Plaintiff's responsibilities was to remove snow from facilities at the Tonawanda Engine Plant. Id. Plaintiff does not provide any further information regarding the terms of its contract with GM. Plaintiff subcontracted the snow removal services at the Tonawanda Engine Plant to Defendant on a yearly basis with an option to renew, which Defendant extended for a number of years. PageID.9.

         In August 2018, GM changed its requirements for snow plowing at the Tonawanda Engine Plant and required Plaintiff to rebid the price of the work moving forward. Id. Plaintiff informed Defendant that it would not renew Defendant's Purchase Order for the 2018 snow removal season because the cost was too high for GM. Id. Defendant agreed to review its pricing for possible reductions and participated in the new bid process for the 2018 snow removal season but ultimately was unable to lower its price due to increased costs. Id.

         Plaintiff then solicited bids from other vendors, one of which provided lower pricing, causing Defendant to lose the contract for the 2018 snow removal season. PageID.10. Plaintiff gave notice to Defendant that Plaintiff had accepted a lower bid and the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant was therefore terminated pursuant to the termination for convenience clause of the Terms & Conditions. Id.

         Defendant has continued to bill Plaintiff monthly for work but has not performed services for Plaintiff for the 2018 snow removal season. Id. Defendant argued that the contract is for a five-year term and may not be terminated. Id. Defendant further argued that Plaintiff breached the contract and Defendant is therefore entitled to participate in snow removal services for the 2020 and 2021 season. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the Purchase Order was for a one-year contract with the option of adding additional years under the same terms for up to four additional years with the same pricing. PageID.9.

         B.

         Plaintiff's complaint presents three counts. Count I alleges that Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory judgment under MCR 2.605 because Defendant waived the original contract between the parties by submitting a new bid. PageID.10-11. Count II alleges that Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory judgment under MCR 2.605 because the Purchase Order was a one-year contract that Plaintiff chose not to renew. PageID.11-12. Count III alleges that Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory judgment under MCR 2.605 because Plaintiff terminated the contract under the convenience clause of the Terms & Conditions included in the contract. PageID.13-14.

         II.

         Defendant has moved to dismiss all three of Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). ECF No. 3. Rule 12(b)(2) provides that a party may assert the defense that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

         Plaintiff argues that the Court has limited personal jurisdiction over Defendant under the Michigan long-arm statute, Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.715(1). PageID.88-90. Section 600.715(1) provides, in relevant part:

The existence of any of the following relationships between a corporation or its agent and the state shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable the courts of record of this state to exercise limited personal jurisdiction over such corporation and to enable such courts to render personal judgment against such corporation arising out of the act or acts which create any of the following relationships: (1) The transaction of any business within the state.

         The Michigan long-arm statute is limited by constitutional due process considerations. When determining whether an exercise of personal jurisdiction would uphold due process, a defendant must have sufficient “minimum contacts with the forum state.” Theunissen v. Matthews, 935 F.2d 1454, 1459 (6th Cir. 1991). Therefore, long-arm jurisdiction under § 600.715 may only be asserted if three additional criteria are satisfied:

1) The defendant must “purposely avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum state or causing consequence ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.