ITL International, Inc. v. Constenla, S.A.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1787
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- ITL International and Mars, Inc. sued their Costa Rican distributor and parent for declaratory relief concerning the exclusive distribution agreement.
- The 1992 agreement with Ciamesa (later acquired by Constenla) granted Costa Rica distribution rights and was governed by Costa Rican law with no express choice-of-law clause.
- Disputes arose over termination rights and a Law 6209 termination penalty, while Mars began selling some products directly in Costa Rica.
- Between 2009 and suit, ITL delivered 91 shipments to Constenla; 55 shipments were FOB Gulfport, Mississippi, with Gulfport designated as the delivery/transfer point.
- Defendants asserted the Law 6209 penalty and argued the district court lacked personal jurisdiction; the district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding lack of constitutional due process for specific jurisdiction, but also addressing Mississippi long-arm doing-business jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mississippi long-arm doing-business prong applies | ITL argues Defendants perform work in Mississippi; doing business in state. | Defendants contend no sufficient nexus or business activity in Mississippi tied to claims. | Yes; doing-business prong provides jurisdiction. |
| Whether due process permits specific jurisdiction | Defendants' Gulfport port designations and shipments create sufficient minimum contacts and nexus. | Contacts are insufficiently connected to the contract and trademark claims for nexus. | No; insufficient nexus for specific jurisdiction; claims not arising from forum contacts. |
Key Cases Cited
- McFadin v. Gerber, 587 F.3d 753 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard for determining personal jurisdiction at the prima facie stage)
- Nuovo Pignone, SpA v. STORMAN ASIA M/V, 310 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2002) (nexus and minimum contacts analysis for specific jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and nexus requirements for due process)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (due process discussion of minimum contacts)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) (due process limits on general and specific jurisdiction)
- Luv N' Care, Ltd. v. Insta-Mix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2006) (nexus requirement for specific jurisdiction; activity tied to claims)
- Estate of Jones v. Phillips, 992 So.2d 1131 (Miss. 2008) (Mississippi long-arm interpretation and authority)
- Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc. v. Food Movers Int'l, Inc., 593 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2010) (relevant discussion on forum-related activity and jurisdiction)
- Ham v. La Cienega Music Co., 4 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 1993) (highly attenuated link between forum contacts and action)