298 F. Supp. 3d 963
S.D. Tex.2018Background
- Decedent, a high-stakes Las Vegas gambler, committed suicide after accruing massive gambling debts; his heirs (Sheri and Haylee Head) sued several casino entities for wrongful death and IIED in Hidalgo County probate court, alleging casinos extended large credit and enticements that led to his debt and suicide.
- Defendants removed to federal court and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction; Plaintiffs offered a two‑page affidavit by Sheri Head as their sole jurisdictional evidence.
- Plaintiffs sought jurisdictional discovery; the Court required a prima facie showing and specific identification of needed discovery, which Plaintiffs failed to provide.
- Sheri Head's affidavit alleged numerous contacts (calls, gifts, credit extensions) but generally failed to specify where acts occurred; the only Texas‑specific allegation was that defendants sent corporate jets to McAllen, Texas for the decedent on "numerous occasions."
- The Court treated the motion on the prima facie standard, denied discovery, rejected defendants’ Rule 56‑style evidentiary objections, but discredited conclusory, vague, and lumped allegations in the affidavit.
- Holding: Court granted defendants’ motions and dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction—neither specific nor general jurisdiction was established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdictional discovery | Heads asked for discovery to develop jurisdictional facts | Defendants argued Plaintiffs made no prima facie showing or identified needed discovery | Denied—Plaintiffs failed to show what facts discovery would produce or how they'd support jurisdiction |
| Admissibility of Sheri Head's affidavit | Affidavit should be considered at 12(b)(2) stage even if containing hearsay/conclusory statements | Defendants moved to strike under Rule 56 and hearsay rules | Court refused to apply Rule 56 standards; considered affidavit only to the extent non‑conclusory and uncontradicted; did not strike wholesale |
| Specific jurisdiction | Heads alleged purposeful direction into Texas (calls, gifts, jets to McAllen) that caused claims to arise from in‑forum conduct | Defendants argued contacts were fortuitous (based on decedent's Texas residency), and jets/contacts did not but‑for cause the claims | Denied—contacts were random/fortuitous, plaintiffs failed the purposeful‑availment and but‑for causation showing required for specific jurisdiction |
| General jurisdiction | Plaintiffs pointed to repeated jets, website activity, and other Texas contacts to show defendants were "at home" in Texas | Defendants noted they are not incorporated or headquartered in Texas and contacts were not sufficiently substantial/continuous | Denied—Plaintiffs failed to show defendants were "at home" in Texas; lone, vague jet allegations and website presence insufficient for all‑purpose jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnston v. Multidata Sys. Int'l Corp., 523 F.3d 602 (5th Cir.) (discusses prima facie personal jurisdiction showing and admissibility considerations)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction exists only where a corporation is essentially "at home")
- Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (formulated the Zippo sliding‑scale test for internet contacts)
- Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir.) (cautions that Zippo is ill‑adapted to general‑jurisdiction analysis)
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (contacts must not be random, fortuitous, or attenuated)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and foreseeability in specific jurisdiction analysis)