JULIUS COPELAND, ) No. ED111141 ) Appellant, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court v. ) of the City of St. Louis, Missouri ) Cause No. 2122-CC00575 WRBM, LLC D/B/A ) WESTERN RIVERS BOAT ) MANAGEMENT, INC., ) Honorable Joan L. Moriarty ) Respondent. ) Filed: July 25, 2023 Introduction Respondent WRBM, LLC d/b/a Western Rivers Boat Management, Inc. ("Employer") moved to dismiss Appellant Julius Copeland's First Amended Petition for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the First Amended Petition without prejudice. Appellant now appeals. We affirm the trial court's order dismissing the First Amended Petition without prejudice. 1
Background
1 A dismissal without prejudice generally does not yield a final, appealable judgment. Avery Contracting, LLC v. Niehaus, 492 S.W.3d 159, 162 (Mo. banc 2016); Reddick v. Spring Lake Ests. Homeowner's Ass'n, 648 S.W.3d 765, 773 n.4 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022), transfer denied (June 21, 2022), transfer denied (Aug. 30, 2022). But it may be treated as a final, appealable judgment when the party elects not to plead further and stands on the original pleadings. Mayes v. Saint Luke's Hosp. of Kansas City, 430 S.W.3d 260, 265 (Mo. banc 2014). Appellant elected to stand on his First Amended Petition, and we therefore treat the dismissal without prejudice as a final, appealable judgment. See id.; see also Avery, 492 S.W.3d at 162.
2
Factual Background The facts, according to the pleadings and jurisdictional discovery, are as follows. Employer is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Kentucky. It is a barge company that performs towing and marine transportation work with its 34 vessels. Three of the vessels normally operate on the Upper Mississippi River. Employer tows barges within and outside the State of Missouri. Employer's clients are barge lines from all over the country, meaning some clients are located in Missouri and others are outside Missouri. Two of Employer's clients are Heartland Barge and SCF Marine, which have their corporate offices in the St. Louis, Missouri area. Employer uses the portion of the Mississippi River in Missouri to access the Upper Mississippi River marketplace. When Employer's vessels travel through the Mississippi River adjacent to St. Louis, they use locks 24 through 28 at the St. Louis harbor. Employer markets itself as a provider of services in the Upper Mississippi River, which runs between St. Paul, Minnesota and St. Louis. St. Louis is marked on a map on the "contact us" page of Employer's website. Approximately 80 of Employer's employees reside in Missouri, but Employer does not solicit or target Missouri residents in particular. One such employee was Appellant, and Employer was aware of his Missouri residence. Appellant worked on the deck as a member of the crew of the M/V Tate Oglesby ("the Vessel"), which traveled throughout the portion of the Mississippi River in Missouri. Appellant received work assignments, employment-related correspondence, direct deposits, medical care for on-the-job injuries (paid for by Employer), and tax records in Missouri from Employer. Appellant traveled hundreds of miles through Missouri to get to Employer's vessels.
3
Sometime before May 1, 2018, Employer contacted Appellant in Missouri and gave him a work assignment for a trip on the Vessel on the Mississippi River. Appellant traveled northbound hundreds of miles in a van supplied by Employer, starting at Employer's office in Paducah, Kentucky, to catch the Vessel in Iowa and join the crew for the trip. To get to the location where Appellant eventually was injured, the Vessel would have traveled southbound out of the Tennessee River, into the Ohio River at Paducah, out of the Ohio River at Cairo, Illinois, into the Mississippi River to St. Louis, and approximately 500 miles northbound on the Mississippi River to a location between Iowa and Wisconsin. From the time the Vessel traveled northbound on the Mississippi River from Cairo to the Missouri-Iowa state line, it was between Missouri and Illinois and at least adjacent to Missouri. For this particular trip, Appellant boarded the Vessel on April 16, 2018 near Burlington, Iowa and was scheduled to work until May 8, 2018. Half of Appellant's trip aboard the Vessel occurred in Missouri. Prior to this voyage, the Vessel was "serviced" in Missouri. 2 The Vessel also was serviced outside Missouri. At various times, the Vessel was inspected and repaired at the First Marine, LLC shipyard in Tennessee. On May 1, 2018, the Vessel was between Iowa and Wisconsin, hundreds of miles upriver from Missouri. At that time, Appellant suffered severe and disabling right shoulder injuries while pulling heavy equipment as the Vessel took on water due to defects in its hull.
Following Appellant's injuries, the Vessel traveled southbound on the Mississippi River through Missouri. Appellant received medical treatment for his injuries in Missouri, and Employer has yet to pay for the treatment.
2 Appellant did not allege in his First Amended Petition, even upon information and belief, whether the half of the trip that occurred in Missouri was before or after his injury, who serviced the Vessel, when it was serviced, what the service consisted of, or what part of the Vessel was serviced.
4
Procedural Background On March 22, 2021, Appellant filed his original petition. Employer moved to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 55.27. 3 On Appellant's motion, the trial court compelled Employer to engage in discovery related to personal jurisdiction, including interrogatories, requests for production, and a deposition, pursuant to Rule 56.01(b)(1). After engaging in jurisdictional discovery, Appellant filed his First Amended Petition on March 3, 2022. 4 The First Amended Petition alleged negligence under the Jones Act and
3 All rule references to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2022) unless otherwise indicated. 4 Because our analysis turns on deficiencies in Appellant's fact-pleading, we set out the relevant factual allegations in the First Amended Petition here: 1. On or about May 1, 2018, Plaintiff Copeland suffered severe and disabling right shoulder injuries, requiring multiple surgeries, in the course of his work for Defendant as a leadman while pulling heavy equipment as Defendant's vessel M/V Tate Oglesby took on water. . . . . 3. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Missouri. 4. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Western Rivers has been a corporation performing work, employing persons, and conducting business within the State of Missouri and the City of St. Louis. . . . . 6. Plaintiff resided in Missouri while working for WRBM LLC, and Defendant was aware of Plaintiff's Missouri residence. 7. Plaintiff regularly boarded and exited vessels for WRBM LLC in Missouri, including St. Louis City. 8. Plaintiff worked for Defendant WRBM LLC as a deckhand, oiler, and mate, in Missouri and worked on the deck of Defendant's vessels building and breaking tow throughout Missouri, including in the City of St. Louis. 9. Plaintiff received work assignments from WRBM LLC in Missouri. 10. Plaintiff traveled hundreds of miles through Missouri to get to Defendant's vessels. 11. Plaintiff was paid by WRBM LLC in Missouri by deposit into his Missouri bank account. 12. Plaintiff received all employment related correspondence and tax records from Defendant at his address in Missouri. 13. Plaintiff would recover and receive medical care for on-the-job injuries, for which Defendant would pay, in Missouri. 14. Defendant WRBM LLC regularly and systematically performs work in the State of Missouri, nearly every day of the year, including operating vessels, transporting cargo, performing maintenance and repair, purchasing supplies, and servicing clients. 15. Defendant WRBM LLC uses the Mississippi River in Missouri to access the Upper Mississippi River marketplace. 16. Defendant WRBM LLC routinely works in the City of St. Louis. 17. Defendant WRBM LLC regularly hires and employs Missouri residents. 18. Plaintiff was injured on Defendant WRBM LLC's vessel, the M/V Tate Oglesby, due to its unseaworthiness and defects in the hull, which allowed for it to take on water. 19. Plaintiff received his work assignment for the subject trip on the M/V Tate Oglesby in Missouri. 20. Plaintiff traveled hundreds of miles in Missouri to catch the M/V Tate Oglesby and join the crew for that subject trip. 21. Plaintiff worked approximately half of his subject trip with the M/V Tate Oglesby in Missouri. 22. Defendant WRBM LLC's vessel, M/V Tate Ogelsby [sic], was serviced in Missouri.
5
unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure under general maritime law. 5 On March 17, 2022, Employer moved to dismiss the First Amended Petition for lack of personal jurisdiction. Employer argued that Appellant's alleged injury did not occur in Missouri, Employer is a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business in Kentucky, and the trial court was without general personal jurisdiction. Employer also argued that Appellant's claims "do not arise from any claimed contacts with Missouri, as required for . . . specific personal jurisdiction." After extensive briefing and argument, the trial court granted Employer's motion to dismiss on November 7, 2022. The court noted that Appellant's First Amended Petition did not state the location of the Vessel when Appellant was injured, but an affidavit submitted in jurisdictional discovery "confirmed that on the date of the alleged injury, the vessel was on the river between
23. In order to arrive at the location of Plaintiff's injury event, Defendant's vessel the M/V Tate Oglesby was operated northbound on the Mississippi River through Missouri. 24. After Plaintiff's injury event, Defendant's vessel the M/V Tate Oglesby was operated southbound on the Mississippi River through Missouri. 25. But-for [sic] Defendant WRBM LLC's use of Missouri, Plaintiff's injury could not have occurred. 26. Plaintiff has received medical treatment for his related injuries in the State of Missouri. 27. Defendant has failed to timely or adequately pay maintenance and cure in the State of Missouri. . . . . 29. On May 1, 2018, Plaintiff's injuries were caused by one or more of the following acts of negligence or omissions of Defendant, its agents, servants, and/or employees: a. Defendant failed to provide him with a reasonably safe place to work; b. Defendant failed to provide him with reasonably safe conditions for work; c. Defendant failed to provide him with adequate and safe equipment with which to work; d. Defendant failed to provide him with reasonably safe methods with which to work; e. Defendant failed to provide adequate assistance to perform the job safely; f. Defendant failed to provide him with an adequate crew; g. Defendant failed to provide him with a vessel, equipment, and crew that were seaworthy; and, h. Defendant violated applicable Coast Guard regulations, and associated codes, at United States Code Title 46. . . . . 32. On May 1, 2018, Plaintiff's injuries were caused by one or more of the following unseaworthy conditions furnished by Defendant: a. Defendant's crew was not reasonably adequate or competent for their intended use; b. De