United Technologies Corp. v. Mazer
78 Fed. R. Serv. 784, 556 F.3d 1260, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2296 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A complaint states a sufficient claim for corporate liability under respondeat superior by alleging facts that raise a right to relief above a speculative level, even for an employee's intentional torts, if the facts plausibly suggest the conduct was within the scope of employment. A plaintiff is not required at the pleading stage to conclusively prove facts that are peculiarly within the defendant's knowledge.
Facts:
- Pratt & Whitney ('Pratt'), a division of United Technologies Corporation (UTC), manufactured aircraft engines and possessed proprietary blueprints for its engine tooling valued at approximately $250,000.
- West-Hem Aircraft Supplies, Inc. ('West-Hem'), a Florida company run by its president Russell Mazer, was in the business of buying and selling aircraft parts and 'related support materials.'
- Aircraft Power Maintenance ('APM'), a Belgian company and customer of West-Hem, needed the Pratt blueprints to service Pratt engines.
- In November 2003, Mazer met with Anthony DiLorenzo, a Pratt contract worker, and expressed interest in acquiring the blueprints.
- In early 2004, DiLorenzo stole the blueprints by accessing a protected Pratt computer without authorization.
- In March or April 2004, Mazer purchased the stolen blueprints from DiLorenzo for approximately $5,000, using West-Hem's Federal Express account for shipping to West-Hem's Florida office.
- Mazer directed West-Hem employees to use company equipment to copy the blueprints, store the originals, and ship a copy to APM in Belgium.
- West-Hem then issued invoices to APM for approximately $25,000 for the blueprints.
Procedural Posture:
- United Technologies Corporation (UTC) filed a lawsuit against Russell Mazer, West-Hem Aircraft Supplies, Inc., and Aircraft Power Maintenance (APM) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
- West-Hem filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- APM filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, supported by an affidavit from its managing director.
- The district court granted West-Hem's motion, finding the complaint failed to establish Mazer acted within the scope of his employment.
- The district court also granted APM's motion, finding it lacked personal jurisdiction because UTC failed to rebut APM's affidavit with admissible evidence.
- The district court entered final judgments in favor of both West-Hem and APM.
- UTC, as appellant, appealed both dismissals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a complaint state a valid claim for corporate liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior when it alleges that a corporation's president committed intentional torts using corporate resources and employees, even if the corporation's primary business is not illegal?
Opinions:
Majority - Tjoflat, J.
Yes. A complaint states a valid claim for corporate liability under respondeat superior by alleging facts that plausibly suggest the employee's tortious conduct was within the scope of his employment. The district court's reading of UTC's complaint was 'far too cramped.' Under Florida law, conduct is within the scope of employment if it is the kind the employee was hired to perform, occurs within the time and space of employment, and is motivated in part by a purpose to serve the employer. UTC's allegations that Mazer, as president, used company resources and employees to acquire and sell materials related to West-Hem's business were sufficient to make it plausible that he acted within the scope of his employment. The fact that UTC alleged Mazer acted both personally and on behalf of West-Hem is permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d), which allows for alternative and inconsistent pleadings. At the pleading stage, a plaintiff who lacks access to a defendant corporation's internal information is not required to plead with greater specificity. Separately, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims against APM for lack of personal jurisdiction. It held that while UTC's complaint made a prima facie case for jurisdiction, APM successfully rebutted it by submitting a sworn affidavit with specific factual denials of any tortious conduct in Florida. The burden then shifted back to UTC to produce competent evidence supporting jurisdiction. UTC's only evidence, a government agent's report summarizing Mazer's statements implicating APM, was correctly deemed inadmissible hearsay within hearsay by the district court, as Mazer's statements did not fall under any hearsay exception. Without admissible evidence, UTC failed to meet its burden to establish personal jurisdiction over APM.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the 'plausibility' pleading standard from Twombly in the context of corporate liability for intentional torts. It establishes that a complaint can survive a motion to dismiss by alleging facts that create a reasonable inference of liability, even if direct proof is in the defendant's exclusive control. The ruling protects plaintiffs from premature dismissal, emphasizing that discovery is the appropriate mechanism for uncovering specific facts about an employee's scope of employment. The case also serves as a crucial reminder for litigators on the requirements for establishing personal jurisdiction, particularly the need to rebut a defendant's sworn affidavit with admissible evidence, not just hearsay.
