1 F.4th 346
5th Cir.2021Background
- Bulkley & Associates, LLC is a Texas trucking company whose driver was injured in Salinas, California in 2015; California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health cited Bulkley for three California workplace-safety violations and assessed penalties.
- Bulkley pursued administrative appeals in California and lost; it then sued in Texas (Bulkley I) seeking mandamus review; the district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- In 2019 the California agency sent Bulkley letters to its Texas headquarters seeking payment and referencing an inspection and required remedial confirmations, warning of follow-up inspections.
- Bulkley filed a second suit in Texas (Bulkley II) alleging the 2019 letter and possible inspections established minimum contacts with Texas.
- The district court dismissed Bulkley II for lack of personal jurisdiction; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the agency’s contacts were insufficient to establish minimum contacts in Texas and therefore personal jurisdiction was lacking.
- The Fifth Circuit declined to decide the agency’s separate argument about whether the Texas long-arm statute applies to out-of-state officials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sept. 2019 letter and the possibility of past/future inspections created minimum contacts with Texas | Letter indicates the agency inspected or would inspect Bulkley’s Texas "place of employment," creating ongoing, purposeful contacts | Letter relates to a California inspection and California-law violations; agency never inspected or will inspect in Texas | No: the letter alone and hypothetical inspections do not establish known minimum contacts |
| Whether instructing Bulkley to remediate violations (which would require changing policies maintained in Texas) constitutes purposeful availment | Requiring remedial changes to policies implemented in Texas shows the agency reached into Texas | The regulatory directives are limited to California events/places; remediation pertains to California workplace events | No: directing compliance with California-limited laws does not subject the agency to Texas jurisdiction |
| Whether the Texas long-arm statute applies to out-of-state state officials (alternative defense) | Bulkley relies on long-arm reach for doing business/committing torts | Agency argues long-arm does not apply to out-of-state officials | Court did not decide; declined to reach this issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Wercinski, 513 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2008) (sending cease-and-desist letters to Texas business alone does not create minimum contacts)
- Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Antt, 528 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2008) (same principle for out-of-state officials enforcing their states’ laws)
- Defense Distributed v. Grewal, 971 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2020) (nationwide enforcement threats not limited to forum state can create minimum contacts)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (personal jurisdiction analysis focuses on defendant’s contacts with the forum)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (limits on general jurisdiction)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishing the minimum-contacts test)