215 F. Supp. 3d 524
S.D. Tex.2017Background
- TBG (The BAR Group, LLC), a Texas-based company selling deception-detection training, sues BIA (Business Intelligence Advisors, Inc.), a Delaware corp. with principal place in Massachusetts, for tortious interference (with contract and prospective contracts) and defamation per se arising from BIA’s 2015 New York suit against KPMG (a former BIA client that hired TBG).
- TBG alleges BIA’s New York litigation was a sham intended to interfere with TBG’s contract/relationships with KPMG and to circulate false statements harming TBG’s business reputation.
- BIA moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) (lack of personal jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6), alternatively seeking a stay pending the New York case; BIA also argued absolute privilege protects litigation statements and that TBG’s claims fail as a matter of law.
- The parties disputed whether BIA has sufficient Texas contacts: TBG pointed to occasional Texas seminars, a former Texas-based BIA employee (2007–2009), and other contacts; BIA submitted affidavits showing minimal, sporadic Texas activity and emphasized the New York-focused nature of the dispute.
- The Court denied a jurisdictional discovery request (finding TBG made no preliminary showing) and denied leave to amend as futile and unduly delayed.
- Holding: the Court concluded it lacks personal jurisdiction over BIA (no general or specific jurisdiction) and dismissed TBG’s complaint without prejudice; it did not reach the Rule 12(b)(6) arguments and denied BIA’s stay request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction — general | BIA had continuous/systematic Texas contacts (seminars, Texas employee, revenue from Texas) supporting general jurisdiction. | BIA lacks continuous, systematic contacts; sporadic seminars and a single former Texas employee are insufficient. | Dismissed for lack of general jurisdiction; contacts were insufficient to render BIA "at home" in Texas. |
| Personal jurisdiction — specific | TBG's claims arise from BIA's conduct (suit and related communications) that injured TBG in Texas, creating specific jurisdiction; Bettes’ Texas employment ties BIA to Texas. | The alleged torts arise from BIA's New York litigation and communications centered in New York; the suit does not arise out of BIA’s Texas contacts. | Dismissed for lack of specific jurisdiction; operative facts relate to New York, not Texas. |
| Request to stay/dismiss under Colorado River/Landis | Stay unnecessary per TBG; New York case does not resolve TBG’s distinct claims and TBG is not a party there. | Judicial economy and overlapping discovery justify staying Texas case pending New York litigation. | Stay denied: actions are not parallel; factors do not warrant abstention or dismissal; Landis discretionary stay not appropriate. |
| Jurisdictional discovery & amendment | TBG sought limited discovery to develop jurisdictional facts and leave to amend to cure pleading defects. | BIA opposed as fishing expedition and undue delay; evidence already shows insufficient contacts. | Discovery denied (no prima facie showing); leave to amend denied as futile/unduly delayed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (federal court must have personal jurisdiction before adjudicating merits)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts and due process framework for personal jurisdiction)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (occasional purchases and visits insufficient for general jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and foreseeability in specific jurisdiction analysis)
- Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (narrow doctrine permitting dismissal/stay for parallel state proceedings in extraordinary circumstances)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (threadbare conclusions insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction limited to forum where corporation is "at home")