616 F. App'x 148
5th Cir.2015Background
- First Metropolitan Church of Houston (Texas) hired Genesis Group (Pennsylvania) to obtain mortgage refinancing for a $56,250 fee; half paid upfront and refundable, remainder due on successful closing.
- Genesis solicited lenders, listed Texas references on its interactive website, contacted at least one Texas bank, but did not secure refinancing and refused to refund the upfront payment.
- First Metropolitan sued in Texas state court for breach of contract and violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA); Genesis removed to federal court and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- District court granted dismissal for want of personal jurisdiction; First Metropolitan appealed, arguing both general and specific jurisdiction over Genesis.
- The Fifth Circuit addressed only whether exercising personal jurisdiction would comport with due process and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General personal jurisdiction | Genesis’s interactive website and Texas references render it “essentially at home” in Texas | Genesis is incorporated and headquartered in Pennsylvania; website contacts are insufficient for general jurisdiction | No general jurisdiction; web presence and references show business with Texas, not in Texas (Daimler/Monkton standard) |
| Specific personal jurisdiction (breach of contract) | Genesis negotiated and breached a contract with a Texas resident, so Texas courts may exercise jurisdiction | Contract negotiations and communications into Texas are insufficient absent long-term/continuing obligations or forum-centric performance | No specific jurisdiction; contract did not contemplate continuing obligations nor identify Texas as performance hub (Stuart/Moncrief) |
| DTPA claim distinctness | DTPA claim alleges Genesis never intended to perform, making it separate from breach claim | DTPA claim is effectively a restated contract claim and was not separately argued below | Court declined to consider new DTPA theory raised first in reply; treated DTPA as not independently supporting jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Ritter, 768 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2014) (general-jurisdiction standard: continuous and systematic contacts render defendant "at home")
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (general jurisdiction limited to place of incorporation or principal place of business in most cases)
- Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1985) (negotiation/contract with forum resident alone insufficient for specific jurisdiction absent ongoing obligations)
- Moncrief Oil Int’l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 481 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2007) (no specific jurisdiction where contract silent on location of performance and forum was not contract activity hub)
- Tony Gullo Motors I, LP v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2006) (allegation of never intending to perform can distinguish a DTPA claim from a breach of contract)