947 F.3d 331
5th Cir.2020Background
- Betty Steffan, an 86‑year‑old Texas resident, fell at L’Auberge du Lac (Lake Charles, LA) and died from injuries; plaintiffs (Texas residents and estate) sued for wrongful death.
- Defendant PNK (Lake Charles) LLC is a Louisiana‑domiciled LLC that owns L’Auberge; its contacts with Texas consist mainly of targeted marketing (focus groups, mailers, billboards, TV, internet) and subsidized charter buses for Texas patrons.
- PNK has no Texas offices, employees, registered agent, property, bank accounts, or licenses and is not registered to do business in Texas.
- Plaintiffs filed in Harris County, Texas; PNK removed to the Southern District of Texas, which transferred the case to the Western District of Louisiana for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Transferee applied Louisiana’s one‑year prescription for wrongful death and entered summary judgment as time‑barred; plaintiffs appeal the transfer order arguing Texas courts could exercise general jurisdiction based on targeted advertising.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas courts have general (all‑purpose) jurisdiction over PNK | PNK’s consistent, targeted advertising and shuttle subsidies to Texans render it "essentially at home" in Texas and subject to general jurisdiction | PNK is domiciled and conducts its principal business in Louisiana; advertising/solicitation alone cannot make it "at home" in Texas | No general jurisdiction: targeted advertising and shuttle subsidies do not render PNK "at home" in Texas under Daimler/Goodyear test |
| Whether advertising contacts of Pinnacle may be imputed to PNK for jurisdiction | Plaintiffs argue Pinnacle’s marketing can be attributed to PNK (or PNK acted through Pinnacle) | PNK denies that Pinnacle’s contacts should be imputed; in any event, attribution would not change the result | Court did not need to resolve attribution: even with or without imputed contacts, PNK lacks the requisite "at home" contacts |
| Whether transfer to Louisiana (and resulting choice‑of‑law) was improper because Texas limitations period would save the claim | Plaintiffs contend Texas has a longer (2‑year) limitations period and Texas jurisdiction would avoid dismissal | PNK relied on transfer and application of Louisiana one‑year prescription that time‑barred the claim | Transfer to Louisiana was proper due to lack of personal jurisdiction in Texas; dismissal as time‑barred stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (establishes that general jurisdiction exists only where defendant is "at home")
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (refines general‑jurisdiction test; "at home" ordinarily means place of incorporation or principal place of business)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, Office of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum‑contacts framework under Due Process)
- Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (classic exceptional case permitting general jurisdiction where corporation carried on substantial part of business in forum)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (due‑process principle that foreseeability alone is insufficient; forum contacts must justify jurisdiction)
- Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Ritter, 768 F.3d 429 (5th Cir.: business that does business with forum residents is not necessarily doing business in forum for general jurisdiction)
- Jackson v. Tanfoglio Giuseppe, S.R.L., 615 F.3d 579 (5th Cir.: national advertising insufficient for general jurisdiction)
- CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir.: discrete solicitation/advertising contacts do not meet Daimler’s demanding general‑jurisdiction standard)