517 F. App'x 229
5th Cir.2013Background
- Southern Snow Manufacturing, Inc. sells shaved-ice machines and related accessories to customers nationwide and internationally.
- A Louisiana customer bought a machine from Southern Snow; years later that machine was resold in Louisiana to Irvin and her Mississippi-residing husband, who moved it to Mississippi.
- Irvin later bought $369.20 of accessories from Southern Snow; these accessories are not claimed to be unique to Southern Snow’s machines.
- Irvin, a Mississippi resident, was injured cleaning the machine and sued Southern Snow in Mississippi state court for negligence, defective design, and failure to warn.
- Southern Snow removed to federal court and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and granted the motion; Irvin appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mississippi can exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Southern Snow. | Irvin argues Southern Snow purposefully availed itself via Mississippi sales and stream-of-commerce. | Southern Snow contends the nexus between Mississippi contacts and Irvin’s injury is insufficient. | No; the required nexus is not shown; jurisdiction lacks proper connection between the forum contacts and Irvin’s claim. |
| Whether Southern Snow’s Mississippi contacts could sustain a stream-of-commerce basis for jurisdiction. | Irvin suggests stream-of-commerce supports jurisdiction because Southern Snow sold to Mississippi customers. | Defendant disputes that stream-of-commerce alone establishes the requisite nexus for this claim. | Assumes, for argument, that purposeful availment is shown, but does not decide the outer limits of stream-of-commerce jurisdiction. |
| Whether Southern Snow is subject to general (all-purpose) jurisdiction in Mississippi. | Waived; Irvin failed to raise/develop general-jurisdiction argument in opening brief; the case focuses on specific jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (expounds purposeful availment and minimum contacts for specific jurisdiction)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (discussion of minimum contacts and fairness in forum state)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (recognizes requirement of nexus between contacts and claim; addresses ‘arise out of’ vs ‘relate to’)
- Bean Dredging Corp. v. Dredge Technology Corp., 744 F.2d 1081 (5th Cir. 1984) (considers volume and type of products placed into the stream of commerce for jurisdictional analysis)
- Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266 (5th Cir. 2006) (limits stream-of-commerce theory; unilateral choice to bring product into forum insufficient for jurisdiction)