56 So. 3d 432
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Eldred, California citizen, sought to domesticate a California judgment in Orleans Parish; Fleming, Louisiana resident, challenged in personam jurisdiction.
- California default judgment against Fleming and Resnic was entered in 2001; Fleming failed to receive notice and contested service via motion to quash in California.
- Louisiana trial court granted Fleming’s summary judgment, annulling the California judgment and the domesticated Louisiana judgment, and consolidated related proceedings.
- This Court previously denied Eldred’s supervisory writs, holding no error in rulings on jurisdiction and prescription.
- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment based on lack of in personam jurisdiction and law-of-the-case doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California lacked in personam jurisdiction over Fleming | Eldred alleges Resnic acted as Fleming’s agent and/or Fleming availed California forum. | Fleming contends no agency or minimum contacts with California; passive advertising insufficient for jurisdiction. | California lacked in personam jurisdiction; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether law-of-the-case precludes reconsideration | Eldred argues issues should be reconsidered anew. | Law of the case governs prior appellate rulings and controls outcome. | Law-of-the-case doctrine precludes reconsideration of those issues. |
| Whether the internet activity and alleged agency supports specific jurisdiction | Resnic’s California activities could establish Fleming’s jurisdiction via agency or contacts. | Resnic was a passive advertiser; no agency or purposeful availment by Fleming. | Passive website and lack of agency evidence negate specific jurisdiction; summary judgment proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (due process requires minimum contacts for in personam jurisdiction)
- Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc., 146 Cal.App.4th 1254 (Cal. Ct. App. 6th Dist. 2006) (California due process limits on jurisdiction consistent with minimum contacts)
- Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.App.4th 262 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2002) (test for specific jurisdiction in California)
- Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002) (guides analysis of general and specific jurisdiction in forums)