Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-0955
March 11, 2004
This cause came before this Honorable Court upon the Motion of the Defendant, Technical Laser Services, Inc., for judgment on the lack of in personam jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(B). This Court, having studied the legal memoranda submitted by the parties, the applicable law and jurisprudence, is fully advised and ready to rule.
ORDER AND REASONS
This case was originally filed in Louisiana State Court on February 26, 2003. On April 4, 2003, defendant Transport International Pool ("TIP") removed to United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In all, plaintiff has filed three supplemental and amending petitions for damages naming as defendants the trailer manufacturer, Wabash National Corporation ("Wabash"), the trailer owner, TIP, the trailer distributor, Wabash National Trailer Centers, Inc. ("Wabash Centers"), and the "hook-in-hole" component part manufacturer Technical Laser Services, Inc. ("TLS"). Plaintiff maintains that LST's "hook-in-hole" component part of the Wabash trailer is unreasonably dangerous and seeks damages.
On November 11, 2003, TLS filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On November 19, 2003, the plaintiffs' filed a memo in opposition to motion to dismiss TLS for lack of jurisdiction. On December 15, 2003, TLS replied to plaintiffs' response to TLS' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
On February 27, 2002, plaintiff, Darrell Cook, was making a delivery for his employer, J.B. Hunt, in Demopolis, Alabama. After unloading his cargo, Mr. Cook pulled away from the unloading dock and parked his truck so that he could unhook and close the rear doors to his trailer which was manufactured by defendant Wabash National Corporation. Mr. Cook unhooked the driver's side rear trailer door, swung it around, and secured it to the trailer. Thereafter, Mr. Cook turned to his right to unhook the passenger side rear trailer door when the left trailer door swiftly swung around and closed onto Mr. Cook. Winds caught the left rear trailer door and caused it to swing around after the "hook-in-hole" hold-back device securing the door became unhooked from the side of the trailer. As a result, the trailer door struck Mr. Cook. To date, plaintiff has had surgery to repair the herniated disc he sustained in his cervical region as a result of the alleged accident.
II. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
A. The Defendant
Technical Laser Services moves to dismiss the plaintiffs' civil action pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(B). TLS states that it is a small non-resident corporation that has not engaged in "systematic and continuous" activities in Louisiana. Defendant states that since the incident upon which plaintiffs' suit is based occurred in Alabama, there is no basis for personal jurisdiction under Louisiana's long-arm statute, La.R.S. 12:3201. Thus, TLS argues that Louisiana's exercise of personal jurisdiction does not comply with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
B. The Plaintiffs'
Plaintiffs' submit that TLS intentionally placed its component part, or "hook-in-hole" device, into the stream of commerce, thereby, deriving a substantial economic benefit from the national market that Wabash serves, including the State of Louisiana. In addition, plaintiff argues that the only issue before this Honorable Court is whether a Louisiana court may assert in personam jurisdiction over the manufacturer of a component part that is incorporated into a product marketed and sold in Louisiana.
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Personal Jurisdiction:
Federal personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant may be asserted if: (1) the law of the forum state provides for the assertion of such jurisdiction; and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction under state law comports with the dictates of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. Job v. ATR Marketing. Inc., 87 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 1996). Under the Louisiana long arm statute, "a court of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident on any basis consistent with the constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States. La.R.S. 13:3201(B). Thus, the Louisiana long arm statute, in effect, merges the two part requirement for federal personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant and permits the exercise of that jurisdiction to the full extent allowed under the United States Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. See e.g., Dalton v. RW Marine, Inc., 897 F.2d 1359 (5th Cir. 1990).
The Due Process Clause, "gives a degree of predictability to the legal system that allows potential defendants to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit." World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 567, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). The due process inquiry has two parts. First, for personal jurisdiction to exist the nonresident defendant purposefully must have established "minimum contacts" with the forum state such that it invoked the benefits and protections of the forum's law and thus reasonably could anticipate being haled into court there. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Holt Oil Gas Corp. v. Harvey, 801 F.2d 773, 777 (5th Cir. 1986). Second, one must determine that circumstances are such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California, 480, U.S. 102, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987); Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Gulf Consolidated Services v. Corinth Pipeworks, S.A, 898 F.2d 1071 (5th Cir. 1990).
"Minimum contacts" are established through either "specific" or "general" jurisdiction over the defendant. When a cause of action arises out of a defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum, minimum contacts are found to exist and the court may exercise specific jurisdiction.Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). On the other hand, a court may exercise general jurisdiction when a defendant's contacts with the forum state are "sufficiently systematic and continuous to support a reasonable exercise of jurisdiction," though the contacts with the state may be unrelated to the controversy. Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185, 1191 (5th Cir. 1985). Courts have held that minimum contacts must have a basis in "some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefit and protection of its laws." Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1239, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958); Asarco. Inc. v. Glenara, Ltd., 912 F.2d 784 (5th Cir. 1990).
The determination of whether a district court may exercise its personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is a question of law. All questions of jurisdictional facts must be resolved in favor of the party seeking to invoke the court's jurisdiction. Ruston Gas Turbines. Inc. v. Donaldson Co., 9 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 1993).
1. Specific Jurisdiction
When the court attempts to assert "specific jurisdiction" over a non-resident defendant, a "relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation" is the essential foundation of specific jurisdiction. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569 (U.S. 1977). To find specific jurisdiction the Court "must determine whether the present litigation resulted from injuries arising out of or related to the non-resident defendant's contacts with the forum state." Felch v. Transportes Lar-Mex Sa De CV, 92 F.3d 320, 323 (5th Cir. 1996). The "purposeful availment" element "ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of 'random,' 'fortuitous,' or 'attenuated' contacts, . . . or the 'unilateral activity of another part/or a third person.'" Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewics, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183 (U.S. 1985).
2. General Jurisdiction
Unlike the specific jurisdiction analysis, which focuses on the cause of action, the defendant and the forum, a general jurisdiction inquiry is dispute blind, the sole focus being on whether there are continuous and systematic contacts between the defendant and the forum. Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414, 104 S.Ct. at 1872. Due process requires that "continuous and systematic" contacts exist between the State and the foreign corporation to exercise general personal jurisdiction. Id., 466 U.S. at 415-416, 104 S.Ct at 1872-73. If the contact resulted from the defendant's conduct and created a substantial connection with the forum state, even a single act can support jurisdiction. Burger King, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S.Ct. at 2184 n. 18, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (citation omitted).
3. Fairness
Once minimum contacts have been established, a court must decide whether the assertion of jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice. The Court is directed to consider the burden on the defendant, the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute, the plaintiffs interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, and the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. See,Burger King, supra and Asahi Metal, supra.
Plaintiffs' fail to present sufficient facts regarding specific and/or general jurisdiction to make a prima facie case supporting jurisdiction.See Alpine View Company Ltd, v. Atlas Copco. AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000). Although the plaintiffs' are correct in that "a defendant placing its product into the stream of commerce with the knowledge that the product will be used in the forum state is enough to constitute minimum contacts," they fail to distinguish that Mr. Cook was not injured in the forum of Louisiana, (emphasis added). As we noted in Bearry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 818 F.2d 370 (5th Cir. 1987), when a non-resident's contact with the forum state "stems from a product, sold or manufactured by the foreign defendant, which has caused harm in the forum state, the court has [specific] jurisdiction if it finds that the defendant delivered the product into the stream of commerce with the expectation that it would be purchased by or used by consumers in the forum state." Alpine View Company Ltd, 205 F.3d at 215 (citing Bearry, 818 F.2d at 374)(quoting World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 298, 100 S.Ct. 567, 62 L.Ed.2d 490) (emphasis added). TLS is a small non-resident corporation which cuts and fabricates sheet metal. The incident upon which this suit is based occurred near Demopolis, Alabama. Thus, the harm to the plaintiff did not occur in the forum of Louisiana. The plaintiffs "stream of commerce" argument will not support a finding of personal jurisdiction.
See F.R.C.P. 12(B) Motion to Dismiss by defendant TLS.
In addition, TLS does not possess the requisite minimum contacts for it to be subject to the forum of Louisiana on the grounds of specific personal jurisdiction for the reasons below. TLS has not: (1) maintained any offices in any state other than Arkansas; (2) conducted business in Louisiana; (3) employed or maintained a sales representative or manufacturing representative in Louisiana; (4) sent sales representatives, manufacturing representatives or other employees into Louisiana; or (5) had any customers in Louisiana. In addition, TLS has no offices, facilities or other properties in Louisiana. Furthermore, the exercise of jurisdiction on non-resident company TLS would offend notions of fair play and substantial justice prevent the forum of Louisiana from exerting its jurisdiction on TLS.
See Affidavit of Robert L. Brown.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on behalf of the
defendant, Technical Laser Services, Inc. ("TLS"), be and the same is hereby GRANTED.