Jacobsen v. Asbestos Corp.
119 So. 3d 770
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Jacobsen appeals trial court’s grant of Norca’s lack of personal jurisdiction exception; Norca brokered asbestos and shipped it to a Louisiana plant, but had no Louisiana offices, assets, or advertising; record shows no live evidence was admitted at the jurisdiction hearing; trial court granted the exception but later signed a written judgment; appellate review addresses whether the appeal is properly before the court and whether the attached documents can be considered; court applies a de Reyes-based method of proof to lack of personal jurisdiction; ultimately affirms dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
- Procedural history: complaint filed May 26, 2010; Norca’s August 9, 2010 answer and exceptions; May–June 2012 hearings, oral ruling, then June 15, 2012 written judgment dismissing Norca for lack of jurisdiction; Jacobsen granted devolutive appeal.
- Issue framing: whether Norca had minimum contacts with Louisiana under stream-of-commerce theories to support specific jurisdiction.
- Key evidentiary point: Norca’s 1950s role as a broker with no Louisiana presence; Johns-Manville transactions occurred in New York; Norca never shipped to Louisiana; no Louisiana physical presence or advertising.
- Legal conclusion: Louisiana court applies stream of commerce analysis and finds insufficient minimum contacts; Norca did not purposefully avail itself of Louisiana law and could not reasonably foresee Louisiana injuries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is properly before the court | Jacobsen argues final judgment exists despite prior oral ruling | Norca contends no final written judgment existed timely | Appeal proper after final written judgment signed |
| Whether attached documents can be considered evidence | Jacobsen attached affidavits and records to opposition | Norca objected to attachments not admitted in evidence | Documents properly considered under de Reyes framework despite no live evidence |
| What constitutes a contradictory hearing for lack of jurisdiction | Jacobsen contends a hearing occurred via memoranda and attachments | Norca argues no live testimony; de Reyes governs | Contradictory hearing not required if no live testimony; de Reyes method applied |
| Whether Norca had minimum contacts with Louisiana to support specific jurisdiction | Stream of commerce theory allows jurisdiction | No purposeful availment toward Louisiana; not reasonably anticipate Louisiana injuries | No sufficient minimum contacts under stream of commerce or stream of commerce plus |
| Which theory governs minimum contacts here | Stream of commerce plus may apply | Stream of commerce suffices or not depending on targeting | Court applies stream of commerce analysis and finds lack of targeting to Louisiana |
Key Cases Cited
- De Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd., 586 So.2d 102 (La. 4th Cir. 1991) (burden and proof rules for lack of personal jurisdiction; use of record-based proof when no contradictory hearing)
- Ruppert v. George Kellett & Sons, Inc., 996 So.2d 501 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2008) (affirming lack of jurisdiction after considering attached affidavit when no live testimony)
- Denoux v. Vessel Management Services, Inc., 983 So.2d 84 (La. 1 Cir. 2008) (evidence not properly offered cannot be considered; distinction between types of exceptions)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S.) (stream of commerce foundational for specific jurisdiction)
- Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (U.S.) (stream of commerce vs. stream of commerce plus debate on targeting forum)
- McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (U.S.) (plurality on stream-of-commerce; narrowest holding governs)
- Broussard v. Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc., 65 So.3d 187 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2011) (discusses minimum contacts and stream-of-commerce analysis post-Asahi)