Indemnity Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Expeditors Int'l of Washington Inc.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Indemnity Insurance Company of North America (“Plaintiff” or “Indemnity”) filed this suit against Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. (“EIW”) and Expeditors Japan KK (“EXPJapan” and collectively with EIW, “Defendants”)¹ seeking recovery for cargo damaged during international transportation. Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 25. The Court finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of subject matter jurisdiction and that Defendants’ argument regarding Plaintiff’s failure to provide notice is not a proper ground for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). However, the Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff has not made a prima facie showing of the Court’s personal jurisdiction over EXPJapan. Therefore, Defendants’ motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.I. BACKGROUNDGeneral Electric Company and its affiliate, GE Medical Systems Trade and Development (Shanghai) Co. (collectively “GE”) are parties to a Global Air Freight Transportation Contract (“Global Contract”) executed between members of the Global Shipper’s Association and EIW. Declaration of Colleen Gillespie, Dkt. No. 28 (“Gillespie Decl.”), at Ex. 1. Pursuant to that contract, EIW agreed to provide transportation services to GE at defined rates for certain routes. Declaration of Michael P. Barbato, Dkt. No. 31 (“Barbato Decl.”), at

2, 3. One of the negotiated routes — also known as “keylanes” — runs between Hino-shi, Japan and Shanghai, China. Id. at 3.Pursuant to that contract, EXPJapan shipped a LightSpeed VCT CAT scan machine on behalf of GE from Tokyo, Japan to Shanghai, China. Compl.