Carreras v. PMG COLLINS, LLC
660 F.3d 549
1st Cir.2011Background
- Habibe-Vargas and Carreras, Puerto Rico residents, contracted to buy MEI units from Collins (Florida) via ISG in Florida; deposits were paid and purchase agreements signed in Puerto Rico; closings failed due to mortgage financing losses in 2008; Collins terminated for non-performance and kept deposits; plaintiffs sued in Puerto Rico federal district court seeking return of earnest payments; district court dismissed for lack of in personam jurisdiction; First Circuit vacates and remands for further record development.
- ISG (Florida) acted as seller via Rainer, with Rosario in Puerto Rico referring buyers and receiving finder’s fees; agency relationship between Rosario and ISG is unclear; several contacts with Puerto Rico are either post-agreement or peripheral.
- Record shows limited contacts to Puerto Rico that relate to formation of the contracts; many contacts are post-agreement or unrelated; two potentially related contacts are ISG-Rainer communications and Rosario relationship, but facts are undeveloped.
- Court uses prima facie standard to evaluate specific jurisdiction; requires relatedness, purposeful availment, and fair play/does not offend due process.
- Court directs remand to determine (a) whether ISG-Rosario agency exists and supports jurisdiction, (b) whether emailed listings to Rosario were related and Rosario’s location unknown, and (c) whether transfer of venue should be considered; vacates district court judgment and remands for further fact development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Puerto Rico has specific jurisdiction over ISG and Collins | Habibe/Carreras proponents: sufficient related contacts exist via Rainer and Rosario referrals. | ISG/Collins: contacts are insufficient, most acts post-date contracts and not purposeful. | Uncertain; remanded for more fact development on agency and related contacts. |
| Whether ISG-Rosario relationship supports agency-based jurisdiction | Rosario may be ISG’s Puerto Rico agent for formation/closing. | Agency not proven; term ‘agent’ used inconsistently; no manifest assent or control shown. | Remand to determine agency existence and its effect on jurisdiction. |
| Whether emailed property listings to Rosario relate to the dispute | Listings possibly influenced referrals and purchases. | Record is silent or ambiguous on timing and effect. | Remand to resolve whether listings predate referrals and their situs/location matter. |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (established due process for jurisdiction based on forum-related contacts)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment; foreseeability and contacts)
- Phillips Exeter Acad. v. Howard Phillips Fund, Inc., 196 F.3d 284 (1st Cir. 1999) (test for relatedness in specific jurisdiction)
- Barrett v. Lombardi, 239 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2001) (prima facie standard and jurisdictional analysis framework)
- Phillips v. Prairie Eye Ctr., 530 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2008) (mailing contracts into forum; purposeful availment limits)