Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 02-3338, SECTION E/2.
January 22, 2003.
ORDER AND REASONS
This matter is before the Court on defendant Marina Associates d/b/a Harrah's Casino Hotel Atlantic City by Harrah's Atlantic City, Inc.'s ("Harrah's") Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. Record Document No. 13. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs allege that during the month of September, 1995, each of the seven casinos named as defendants reported to the United States Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") that the plaintiffs had gambled at the casino and earned winnings, and each casino reported to the IRS the specific amount of winnings. In September of 1997, plaintiffs were contacted by the IRS and assessed taxes, interest and penalties in the amount of $200,742.00 on the reported winnings. Plaintiffs claim that they never gambled at any of the casinos, and that the incorrect reporting of their nonexistent winnings to the IRS caused them damages.
On September 13, 2002, plaintiffs filed suit against defendants in state court alleging negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent misrepresentation. One of the casino defendants now involved in bankruptcy proceedings, Ceasar's World, Inc., removed the matter to federal court. Harrah's filed this motion to dismiss asserting that (1) this court lacks personal jurisdiction over it, and (2) insufficiency of service of process.
ANALYSIS
Louisiana's Long-Arm Statute extends personal jurisdiction to the limits of due process. See LSA-R.S. § 13:3201. This Court need only determine if subjecting the defendants to suit in Louisiana would offend the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Fox v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, 576 So.2d 978, 983 (La. 1991). Interpreting this due process protection, the United States Supreme Court repeatedly has held that personal jurisdiction may be asserted over a nonresident defendant only if that defendant has certain "minimum contacts" with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." See, e.g., International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). The United States Supreme Court has recognized two categories of "minimum contact" with a state that may subject a defendant to jurisdiction in that forum. A state has "specific jurisdiction" over a defendant when the suit arises out of or is related to the defendant's contacts with the forum state. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbis, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n. 8, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1872 n. 8, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). A state has "general jurisdiction" over a defendant when the defendant has "continuous and systematic" contacts with the forum state. See, e.g., Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952). In this context, minimum contacts means that the defendant has purposely availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state and that he should reasonably anticipate being hailed into Court in the forum state. Dickson Marine Inc., v. Panalpina, Inc., 179 F.3d 331, 336 (5th Cir. 1999); Langley v. Oxford Chemicals, Inc., 634 So.2d 950 (La.App. 2 1994) citing Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958) (other citations omitted). Thus, personal jurisdiction may be exercised over the defendant even when the suit does not arise out of the defendant's contacts with the forum state. See Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 415 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. at 1872 n. 9.
In responding to a challenge to in personam jurisdiction, a "plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, so that the allegations of the complaint are taken as true except as controverted by the defendant's affidavits and conflicts in the affidavits are resolved in plaintiff's favor."Asarco, Inc. v. Glenara, Ltd., 912 F.2d 784, 785 (5th Cir. 1990), quoting Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 798 F.2d 826, 831 (5th Cir. 1986), modified on other grounds, 836 F.2d 850 (1988)
Plaintiffs concede that their cause of action is unrelated to the defendant's contacts with Louisiana, thus Harrah's is not subject to the Court's specific jurisdiction. The Court therefore need only address whether it has general jurisdiction over Harrah's.
In support of its motion to dismiss, Harrah's produced the affidavit of Luther B. Anderson, Vice-President of Legal Affairs and Secretary of Harrah's Atlantic City, Inc., the general partner of Marina Associates. In his affidavit, Mr. Anderson testified as follows: Marina Associates is a New Jersey general partnership with its principal place of business in Atlantic City, New Jersey; it is the owner of Harrah's Casino Hotel Atlantic City, located in Atlantic City, New Jersey; it is not now and has never been licensed or authorized to conduct or transact business in Louisiana; it does not now and has never had any partners, employees or agents working or residing in Louisiana; it has never had an office or an agent for service of process in Louisiana; it has never leased, rented or owned real property, or conducted any business in Louisiana; it does not advertize or solicit business directly in Louisiana; and it does not have a telephone number, business listing or mailing address in Louisiana.
Plaintiffs do not controvert the factual assertions made in Mr. Anderson's affidavit to the extent that they relate to Harrah's lack of contacts in Louisiana. Citing Langley v. Oxford Chemicals, Inc., 634 So.2d 950 (La.App. 2 1994), plaintiffs argue that Harrah's is subject to general jurisdiction in Louisiana because its reckless and careless accounting practices caused injury to an unsuspecting Louisiana citizen in Louisiana, and as a result it should have reasonably anticipated being hailed into court in Louisiana. They also argue that Harrah's purposely availed itself "of the privilege of conducting business in the state when it falsely reported information on nonexistent gambling winnings of a Louisiana citizen to the IRS, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of the forum State's law", presumably on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the "defendant casinos have erroneously and falsely claimed that the petitioners won some money at their casinos of which some tax liability was due." Complaint, ¶ XIV. As to Harrah's specifically, ¶ XIX of the Complaint alleges as follows:
Throughout the month of September, 1995, the defendant Harrah's Casino Atlantic City, New Jersey reported to the United States Internal Revenue Service that petitioner has gambled at their Casino and had earned winnings at that Casino during that time period in the amount of TWELVE THOUSAND and 00/100 ($12,000.00) DOLLARS.
Assuming plaintiffs' version of the facts is true, Harrah's contact with Louisiana is pure happenstance. Although the Complaint alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress, plaintiffs' do not allege that Harrah's knowingly and deliberately selected the Thomases, knowing that they were Louisiana residents, in order to falsely report their nonexistent gambling winnings to the IRS. Harrah's cannot be said to have "purposely availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in the state" when through its "reckless and careless accounting practices" it reported erroneous information on nonexistent gambling winnings to the IRS. Having absolutely no continuous and systematic contacts with the State of Louisiana, Harrah's is not subject to this Court's jurisdiction.
Because this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Harrah's (Marina Associates), the Court need not address the insufficiency of service of process issue.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that defendant Marina Associates d/b/a Harrah's Casino Hotel Atlantic City by Harrah's Atlantic City, Inc.'s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is GRANTED.