Dixie Motors, L.L.C. v. Motor Home Specialist, L.P.
2:15-cv-01247
E.D. La.Feb 13, 2017Background
- Dixie Motors (Louisiana) sued Motor Home Specialist (Texas) for trademark infringement based on allegedly misleading online ads redirecting Dixie customers.
- Motor Home Specialist previously moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the court denied that motion, finding Motor Home Specialist purposefully directed ads at Louisiana.
- Motor Home Specialist brought third-party claims (contribution, indemnity, breach of contract) against Yellow7, a Texas marketing company hired to run the advertising campaign.
- Yellow7 filed a second Rule 12(b)(2) motion arguing the court lacks personal jurisdiction, urging the court to limit analysis to breach-of-contract contacts and contending Texas law disallows contribution claims under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.013(d).
- Motor Home Specialist contends Yellow7 intentionally targeted Dixie Motors and its Louisiana customers via the ad campaign, creating sufficient forum contacts for specific jurisdiction.
- The court resolves factual disputes in favor of Motor Home Specialist at the prima facie stage and finds the advertising campaign a forum-related contact tied to all third-party claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has specific personal jurisdiction over Yellow7 | Yellow7 purposefully targeted Dixie Motors/Louisiana via the ad campaign, so Motor Home Specialist’s claims arise from forum contacts | Jurisdiction should be analyzed only with respect to breach of contract; Texas §33.013(d) negates contribution claims and limits contacts to contract performance | Court denied the motion: ad campaign constitutes forum-related contacts supporting specific jurisdiction over Yellow7 |
| Whether Texas law (§33.013) removes contribution as a viable claim for jurisdictional analysis | Motor Home Specialist asserts contribution is available (statutory scheme and case law permit joinder of responsible third parties) | Yellow7 reads §33.013(d) as abolishing contribution as a cause of action | Court rejects Yellow7’s reading; contribution and joinder of responsible third parties remain recognized under Texas law |
| Whether contract-only contacts (place of contracting/performance) limit minimum-contacts analysis | Motor Home Specialist argues broader contacts (prior negotiations, campaign conduct, targeted effects) are relevant | Yellow7 argues only contemplated performance in forum matters for contract cases | Court applies Nuovo Pignone/Burger King: contract factors are relevant but not exclusive; broader forum-related conduct may establish jurisdiction |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction is fair and reasonable under due process | Motor Home Specialist: exercising jurisdiction is reasonable given targeted effects and parties’ roles | Yellow7: (implied) jurisdiction would be unfair to a nonresident marketer | Court finds exercise of specific jurisdiction constitutional under Burger King factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Nuovo Pignone, SpA v. STORMAN ASIA M/V, 310 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2002) (articulates three-part specific-jurisdiction test applied here)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (establishes purposeful availment/targeting and reasonableness factors)
- Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644 (5th Cir. 1994) (prima facie standard for personal-jurisdiction factual disputes)
- Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1985) (plaintiff bears burden to show jurisdiction; prima facie standard explained)
- Thompson v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 755 F.2d 1162 (5th Cir. 1985) (courts may consider affidavits and discovery materials in jurisdictional inquiry)
- Baird v. Bell Helicopter Textron, 491 F. Supp. 1129 (N.D. Tex. 1980) (recognizes a defendant may bring third parties into suit for contribution purposes)