569 S.W.3d 865
Ark.2019Background
- Defendant Simmons Sporting Goods is a Louisiana corporation operating a retail store in Bastrop, LA; it has never operated a store in Arkansas.
- Simmons advertised to Arkansas residents via catalog inserts, Arkansas newspaper display ads, TV promos, online ads with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, and used an Arkansas printer; it also ran an Arkansas "Big Buck Contest."
- Plaintiff Carolyn Lawson, an Arkansas resident, traveled to Simmons’ Bastrop store for a tent sale and fell on a foyer rug in the Louisiana store, breaking her arm.
- Lawson sued Simmons in Ashley County, Arkansas, asserting premises-liability claims; Simmons moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2).
- The Arkansas trial court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; the court of appeals initially reversed, but the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded in light of Bristol-Myers, and on remand the court of appeals affirmed dismissal.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court granted review and affirmed: Arkansas courts lack specific personal jurisdiction because Lawson’s injury and the alleged negligence occurred in Louisiana and are not connected to Simmons’s Arkansas contacts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arkansas courts have specific personal jurisdiction over Simmons | Lawson argued Simmons’ advertising, use of an Arkansas printer, and Arkansas promotions (Big Buck Contest) purposefully availed it to suit in Arkansas | Simmons argued its contacts (advertising, contest, printer) were insufficient because the injury and conduct occurred in Louisiana | Held: No specific jurisdiction—plaintiff's claims do not arise from or relate to Simmons’ contacts with Arkansas |
| Whether general jurisdiction exists | Lawson initially alleged general jurisdiction | Simmons is incorporated and headquartered in Louisiana (not in Arkansas) | Plaintiff abandoned general-jurisdiction claim; court did not exercise general jurisdiction |
| Proper standard of review for Rule 12(b)(2) when extraneous evidence is considered | Lawson relied on prior Arkansas practice treating such motions as converted to summary judgment | Simmons argued courts may resolve disputed jurisdictional facts and that conversion to Rule 56 is inappropriate | Held: Rule 12(b)(2) is not converted to Rule 56; if the trial court rules on undisputed pleadings the review is de novo; if it resolves disputed facts, review is for clear error |
| Whether forum contacts like advertising alone can support specific jurisdiction for unrelated in-forum claims | Lawson argued advertising and promotional activities created sufficient contacts | Simmons argued advertising alone cannot support jurisdiction for claims arising from an out-of-forum occurrence | Held: Advertising alone is insufficient; specific jurisdiction requires a connection between the forum and the specific claims (Bristol-Myers analysis) |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts and fair play/substantial justice standard)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and reasonable anticipation of being haled into court)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (distinction between general and specific jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (focus on relationship among defendant, forum, and litigation)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (specific jurisdiction requires connection between forum and the specific claims)
- Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724 (Eighth Circuit precedent on resolving jurisdictional facts without converting to summary judgment)