Perdue Foods LLC v. BRF S.A.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2870
4th Cir.2016Background
- Perdue Holdings (Maryland) and BRF S.A. (Brazil) executed a 2003 Worldwide Coexistence Agreement (2005 addendum) resolving trademark coexistence issues; agreement contains a Maryland choice-of-law clause.
- Perdue alleges BRF breached the Agreement by seeking and refusing to abandon certain foreign trademark registrations/applications in multiple countries.
- From 2012–2014 Perdue purchased ~715,000 lbs of chicken from BRF; Perdue sent purchase orders from Maryland and BRF invoiced Maryland, but shipments went from Brazil to Tanzania.
- BRF has no offices, agents, property, or routine business in Maryland and did not negotiate the Agreement in Maryland; BRF executed the Agreement in Brazil, Perdue in Maryland.
- Perdue sued in the District of Maryland; BRF moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court granted dismissal; Perdue appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maryland federal court has specific personal jurisdiction over BRF | Perdue: BRF purposefully availed itself of Maryland by contracting with a Maryland company, including a Maryland choice-of-law clause, and by sending invoices/receiving purchase orders tied to Maryland | BRF: Lacks sufficient contacts with Maryland—no offices, agents, property, sales, shipments to Maryland, or negotiation/performance in Maryland; alleged breaches occurred outside Maryland | Court: No specific jurisdiction—Perdue failed to show BRF purposefully availed itself of Maryland (first prong not met) |
Key Cases Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (contracts with continuing obligations may support specific jurisdiction where contacts are substantial)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (general jurisdiction requires ‘‘continuous and systematic’’ contacts)
- Consulting Eng’rs Corp. v. Geometric Ltd., 561 F.3d 273 (Fourth Circuit framework for assessing purposeful availment and specific jurisdiction)
- ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (three-part test for specific personal jurisdiction)
- Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673 (prima facie showing standard on jurisdictional motion papers)
- Universal Leather, LLC v. Koro AR, S.A., 773 F.3d 553 (totality of facts approach to specific jurisdiction)
- Nichols v. G.D. Searle & Co., 991 F.2d 1195 (state long-arm analysis merges with federal due-process inquiry)
- Beyond Sys., Inc. v. Realtime Gaming Holding Co., LLC, 878 A.2d 567 (Md. Ct. App.; Maryland long-arm reaches as far as the Due Process Clause)