Herederos De Roberto Gomez Cabrera, LLC v. Teck Resources Limited, 43 F.4th 1303

In 1960 the Cuban government confiscated Roberto Gomez Cabrera’s mines; his heirs assigned their claims to a Florida LLC, Herederos de Roberto Gomez Cabrera.
Herederos sued Teck Resources Limited, a Canadian corporation, under the Helms‑Burton Act alleging Teck “trafficked” in the confiscated mines.
Teck moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the district court granted dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2).
The key legal question was whether Fifth Amendment due‑process limits on federal‑court jurisdiction should be analyzed like Fourteenth Amendment personal‑jurisdiction (minimum contacts) or under a more lenient “arbitrary or fundamentally unfair” extraterritoriality standard.
The Eleventh Circuit held the Fifth Amendment personal‑jurisdiction inquiry uses the same minimum‑contacts test as the Fourteenth; it found neither specific nor general jurisdiction over Teck and affirmed dismissal.
The court also upheld denial of jurisdictional discovery because Herederos never properly sought it before dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper due‑process test under the Fifth Amendment	Apply permissive “arbitrary or fundamentally unfair” extraterritoriality standard	Use traditional International Shoe minimum‑contacts / fair‑play test	Fifth Amendment uses same minimum‑contacts test as Fourteenth; extraterritoriality standard inapplicable
Specific jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2)	Teck’s conduct injured Herederos in the U.S.; effects in U.S. suffice to link claim to forum	Teck lacked U.S. actions and purposeful availment; only incidental effects occurred in U.S.	No specific jurisdiction: claim does not arise out of or relate to Teck’s U.S. contacts (effects alone insufficient)
General jurisdiction ("at home")	Teck is "at home" in the U.S. because its U.S. subsidiaries are incorporated and have principal places of business here	Teck not incorporated or PPB in U.S.; subsidiaries are independent, not alter egos	No general jurisdiction: Daimler standard controls; subsidiaries are not alter egos and cannot render Teck “at home”
Jurisdictional discovery	Herederos argued discovery was warranted	Teck noted Herederos never timely moved for jurisdictional discovery	Denial not an abuse: Herederos unduly delayed and did not file a proper motion for discovery

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes minimum‑contacts test for personal jurisdiction)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (limits general jurisdiction to forums where a corporation is "at home")
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (specific jurisdiction requires an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy—an activity or occurrence in the forum)
World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (effects felt in the forum alone do not establish jurisdiction)
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (distinguishes legislative/extraterritorial reach of statutes from courts’ adjudicative jurisdiction)
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (international context and burdens on alien defendants relevant to due‑process analysis)
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339 (sets out the three‑part specific‑jurisdiction test applied in Eleventh Circuit)
Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210 (explains Fifth Amendment personal‑jurisdiction analysis tracks Fourteenth Amendment)
SEC v. Marin, 982 F.3d 1341 (applied minimum‑contacts test under the Fifth Amendment)
Waite v. All Acquisition Corp., 901 F.3d 1307 (focuses on affiliation between forum and underlying controversy for specific jurisdiction)