627 F. App'x 323
5th Cir.2015Background
- Eddy injured on Oct 13, 2006 in Texas by a printing press manufactured by TPH in India.
- The press was originally built for a Mississippi buyer (Intermountain Color) and later changed hands through several intermediaries before installation in Waxahachie, Texas.
- TPH shipped spare parts (driveshaft, nuts, bolts) directly to Waxahachie, Texas.
- Eddy filed suit in Texas state court on Aug 13, 2008; TPH appeared specially and removed to federal court in Dec 2008.
- The district court dismissed TPH for lack of personal jurisdiction in Jan 2010; final dismissal order issued Mar 26, 2015; Eddy appealed Apr 24, 2015.
- The issue is whether Texas courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over TPH based on minimum contacts and due process, given the press’s and parts’ contacts with Texas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over TPH | Eddy contends TPH had minimum contacts via stream-of-commerce or targeted shipments to Texas | TPH did not purposefully avail itself of Texas; absence of injury-foreseeability and Texas nexus | No; lack of minimum contacts supports dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (presence in forum must be connected to the cause of action; consequence of unilateral movement through stream)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment and reasonableness; it's about minimum contacts and fair play)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (emphasizes limits of general jurisdiction; requires substantial, continuous contacts)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (establishes minimum contacts and due process framework)
- Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 2000) (minimum contacts require purposeful availment of benefits of forum)
- Bearry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 818 F.2d 370 (5th Cir. 1987) (stream-of-commerce with expectation of forum-state use; not mere foreseeability)
- Luv N' care, Ltd. v. Insta-Mix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2006) (mere foreseeability is insufficient unless product enters forum while in stream of commerce)
- Pervasive Software Inc. v. Lexware GmbH & Co. KG, 688 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2012) (two-prong framework collapses to due-process inquiry in Texas when long-arm statute reaches due process)