125 So. 3d 1220
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- On Oct. 1, 2012 Jerry and Debbie Johnson (Louisiana domiciliaries) sued Arkansas resident Gary Byrd and his insurer for injuries from a dog bite that occurred on Byrd’s Arkansas premises.\
- Petition alleged Byrd routinely solicited and did business with Louisiana residents from a small-engine repair business near the LA border; service was effected under Louisiana’s long-arm statute.\
- Defendants filed declinatory exceptions asserting lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue and presented no affidavits or evidentiary support.\
- Plaintiffs promptly served jurisdictional discovery requests, moved to continue the exceptions hearing, and filed a motion to compel discovery when responses were not provided.\
- At the Nov. 27, 2012 hearing the trial court refused to allow discovery or evidence, ruled from the pleadings alone, granted the exceptions, denied the continuance and motion to compel, and dismissed the case without prejudice; the appellate court reversed and remanded.\
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction under La. R.S. 13:3201(A)(4) / due process | Byrd regularly solicits/does business with LA residents; discovery would show minimum contacts | Byrd is Arkansas resident; incident occurred in Arkansas; no business transacted in LA | Trial court erred by resolving jurisdiction without allowing limited, relevant discovery; reversal and remand for further proceedings |
| Right to jurisdictional discovery before ruling on declinatory exceptions | Plaintiffs sought limited discovery (interrogatories, documents, depositions) and a continuance to obtain it | Exceptions should be decided promptly on pleadings; no discovery allowed, hearing should be based on face of petition | Plaintiffs entitled to pursue reasonable jurisdictional discovery; trial court abused discretion in denying continuance and compelling discovery |
| Standard of proof/evidence at contradictory hearing on exceptions | Evidence (affidavits, depositions, responses) may be admitted to controvert exceptions | Exceptions can be decided solely on pleadings without evidence | Court misapplied law; evidence is admissible and if presented exception must be decided on that evidence |
| Venue tied to jurisdiction (La. R.S. 13:3203) | Venue in Webster Parish pleaded based on plaintiffs’ domicile and asserted jurisdictional contacts | Venue improper because no personal jurisdiction; dismissal appropriate | Because jurisdictional ruling was premature/erroneous, venue dismissal also reversed and remanded for proper jurisdictional resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (due process requires minimum contacts)\
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (scope of due-process personal jurisdiction limits)\
- de Reyes v. Marine Mgmt. & Consulting, Ltd., 586 So.2d 103 (La. 1991) (application of long-arm statute and due-process analysis in Louisiana)\
- SteriFx, Inc. v. Roden, 939 So.2d 533 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2006) (evidence and discovery considered at hearing on declinatory exceptions)