Monkton Ins Services, Limited v. William Ritter
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18480
5th Cir.2014Background
- Ritter, a Texas resident and owner of Geneva Insurance SPC Ltd. (a Cayman entity), sued Butterfield Bank (Cayman) Ltd. after alleged forged withdrawals from Geneva’s Butterfield account.
- Geneva’s account was opened in Grand Cayman; account contracts designated Cayman law and performance/jurisdiction in George Town, Grand Cayman.
- Ritter received account documents in Texas (faxed by Geneva’s manager, Self), made several phone calls from Texas to Butterfield, and arranged roughly 20 wire transfers between Geneva’s Butterfield account and Texas banks over ~3.5 years; Geneva (not Butterfield) initiated those transfers.
- Ritter asserted both general and specific personal jurisdiction over Butterfield in Texas and requested jurisdictional discovery; Butterfield moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The district court denied jurisdictional discovery and dismissed Butterfield for lack of personal jurisdiction; Ritter appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas has general jurisdiction over Butterfield | Ritter: Butterfield’s website, phone contacts, and wires with Texas customers amount to continuous and systematic contacts making Butterfield "at home" in Texas | Butterfield: Incorporated and based in Cayman; contacts (calls, wires, website) are insufficient and largely initiated by Ritter/Geneva | No general jurisdiction — Butterfield is "at home" in Cayman, not Texas (Daimler controls) |
| Whether Texas has specific jurisdiction over Butterfield for Ritter’s claim | Ritter: Account contract, sent to him in Texas, phone calls, and wires to Texas create suit-related forum contacts | Butterfield: Contract was with Geneva in Cayman; communications and transfers were initiated by Geneva/Ritter, not Butterfield; defendant-focused minimum contacts lacking | No specific jurisdiction — defendant did not purposefully avail itself of Texas or create suit-related contacts with Texas |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying jurisdictional discovery | Ritter: Additional discovery could reveal more Texas contacts supporting jurisdiction | Butterfield: Existing undisputed facts show discovery unlikely to produce necessary contacts; Ritter already has access to Geneva’s records | No abuse of discretion — discovery would not likely change jurisdictional outcome |
| Whether the district court erred by reviewing Butterfield’s website sua sponte | Ritter: District court improperly took judicial notice of the website | Butterfield: Not argued separately on appeal | Court did not rely on district court’s website factfinding on appeal and noted the website was not properly judicially noticed without notice to parties |
Key Cases Cited
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes "minimum contacts" standard for jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (general jurisdiction requires affiliations making defendant "at home" in forum)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (specific jurisdiction requires defendant-created forum contacts; suit-related connection required)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (framework for general jurisdiction inquiry)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (unilateral activity of forum residents cannot establish defendant contacts)
- Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (Fifth Circuit standards for pleading prima facie jurisdictional facts)
- Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266 (three-step Fifth Circuit specific-jurisdiction test)
- Moncrief Oil Int’l, Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 481 F.3d 309 (contracting with a forum resident alone does not establish jurisdiction)
- Pervasive Software Inc. v. Lexware GmbH & Co. KG, 688 F.3d 214 (contacts with forum residents insufficient when not defendant-created)
- Alpine View Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208 (standards on when jurisdictional discovery is warranted)