237 So. 3d 614
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Dr. Alan Kaye (Louisiana resident) sued a Maryland law firm on an open account alleging unpaid expert fees after being retained as a medical expert in a malpractice case.
- Original petition alleged the firm retained Kaye and directed out-of-state work; Kaye later amended to allege the firm contacted him and that one of its attorneys traveled to Jefferson Parish to prepare for, attend, and defend Kaye’s deposition.
- The law firm filed exceptions including lack of personal jurisdiction; the trial court initially denied jurisdiction but this court granted a writ, finding the original petition lacked allegations of the firm’s in-state activity, and remanded.
- Kaye filed a second amended petition alleging the firm traveled to Louisiana for his deposition; the firm again moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The trial court granted the exception and dismissed Kaye’s suit; Kaye appealed. The appellate court reviews legal issues de novo and factual findings for manifest error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Louisiana courts have specific personal jurisdiction over the out‑of‑state law firm | Kaye: firm purposefully availed itself of Louisiana by contacting and retaining him and sending counsel to Louisiana to prepare for/defend his deposition | Firm: no constitutionally sufficient contacts with Louisiana; attorneys not licensed in LA and firm does not practice there | Held: Yes — the amended petition alleges purposeful contact (travel to LA to defend deposition) sufficient for specific jurisdiction |
| Whether the assertion of jurisdiction would offend fair play and substantial justice | Kaye: burden on defendant is slight; Louisiana has strong interest; plaintiff’s convenience favors LA | Firm: defending suit in LA would be unreasonable and burdensome | Held: No — factors (defendant burden, forum interest, plaintiff convenience, judicial efficiency, interstate policy) weigh against finding unreasonableness |
| Whether the trial court properly relied on attachments to Kaye’s opposition | Kaye: attachments support jurisdictional facts | Firm: attachments hearsay and improperly considered | Held: Court pretermits this issue — jurisdictional sufficiency found on face of second amended petition alone, so attachments need not be considered |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate | Kaye: dismissal improper because jurisdiction exists | Firm: dismissal proper given lack of contacts | Held: Reversed — dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction vacated; case remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobsen v. Asbestos Corp., 119 So.3d 770 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013) (standard of review and burden for jurisdictional exceptions)
- de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, 586 So.2d 103 (La. 1991) (purposeful availment and contacts analysis)
- Ruckstuhl v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., 731 So.2d 881 (La. 1999) (single act of contact may suffice and reasonableness factors)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (foundation for minimum contacts/personal jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment and single-act contacts)
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (foreseeability and reasonable anticipation of suit)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (U.S. 2011) (general vs. specific jurisdiction distinction)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (limits on general jurisdiction)
- Power v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 193 So.3d 471 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2016) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Matthews v. United Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 213 So.3d 502 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2017) (when no evidence introduced, court is limited to petition allegations)