Defense Training Systems et al v. International Charter Inc of Wyoming et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA
Defense Training Systems and 	)
Katmai Government Services, LLC, 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	) 	3:13-cv-172 JWS
)
vs. 	)
) 	ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
International Charter Inc. of 	)
Wyoming and Brian J. Boquist 	)
) 	[Re: Motion at docket 12]
Defendants. 	)
)
I. BACKGROUND
At docket 12 defendant Brian J. Boquist moved to dismiss the claims against him
arguing that his contacts with the State of Alaska are insufficient to support the exercise
of personal jurisdiction in this district. Plaintiffs opposed at docket 22. Boquist replied
at docket 33. The court’s order at docket 41 held that it could not exercise general
jurisdiction over Boquist. The order found that the record was not sufficiently developed
to determine whether the court could exercise specific jurisdiction over Boquist. The
court referred the specific jurisdiction issue to a magistrate judge for purposes of
conducting an evidentiary hearing and providing this court with a recommendation on
the specific jurisdiction issue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
The referral was assigned to Magistrate Judge Smith who conducted an
evidentiary hearing on February 6 and 7. A transcript of the hearing was filed at
dockets 61 and 62. Judge Smith entertained additional briefing. Thereafter, she filed
her report at docket 69 recommending that this court exercise specific jurisdiction over
Case 3:13-cv-00172-JWS-DMS Document 72 Filed 07/03/14 Page 1 of 2

defendant Boquist. The time for filing objections to the report has run. No objections
have been filed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate.”1 When reviewing a magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation, the district court conducts de novo review of all
conclusions of law,2 and any findings of fact to which objections have been made.3
Uncontested findings of fact are reviewed for clear error.4
III. DISCUSSION
Having reviewed the file and applied the standard of review articulated above,
this court concludes that the magistrate judge has correctly found the facts and applied
the law. 	Judge Smith’s report is exceedingly thorough and very well reasoned.
Defendant Boquist’s contacts with Alaska clearly support the exercise of specific
jurisdiction in this case. This court adopts Magistrate Judge Smith’s recommended
findings and conclusions in her report at docket 69. Based thereon, the motion at
docket 12 is DENIED with respect to specific jurisdiction. The court will adjudicate
plaintiffs’ claims.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska this 3rd day of July 2014.
/S/
JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9 th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by
Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9 th Cir. 1996).
3
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
4Taberer v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 954 F.2d 888, 906 (3d Cir. 1992).
-2-
Case 3:13-cv-00172-JWS-DMS Document 72 Filed 07/03/14 Page 2 of 2