326 F. Supp. 3d 284
E.D. La.2018Background
- Plaintiff Eddie Stewart, a Louisiana resident and commercial truck driver, was injured when a Polar-manufactured tanker trailer exploded in Ohio after being loaded at Marathon’s Detroit refinery.
- Stewart alleges the Polar defendants negligently designed/manufactured the trailer and that Marathon loaded the incorrect chemical at its Michigan refinery.
- The Polar defendants sold the trailer to Quality Carriers (a Florida company) in Minnesota; Quality thereafter moved and garaged the trailer in Louisiana before the route that led to the explosion.
- Stewart seeks to assert personal jurisdiction in Louisiana over the Polar defendants (via a stream-of-commerce/specific-jurisdiction theory) and over Marathon (via general jurisdiction).
- The court evaluated jurisdiction under Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, treated the motion on the record (no evidentiary hearing), and dismissed both defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Louisiana courts have specific jurisdiction over Polar defendants under a stream-of-commerce theory | Stewart: Polar purposefully availed itself of Louisiana by selling trailers that end up registered/used in Louisiana and maintaining sales presence there; this supports jurisdiction | Polar: The trailer left the stream of commerce when sold to Quality Carriers in Minnesota; subsequent unilateral movement to Louisiana by purchaser cannot subject Polar to Louisiana jurisdiction | Held: No specific jurisdiction. The sale to Quality ended the stream; alternatively, Stewart failed to show the required nexus between Polar’s Louisiana contacts and the accident-causing trailer |
| Whether Louisiana courts have general jurisdiction over Marathon | Stewart: Marathon has substantial Louisiana operations (≈30% of refining capacity and storage) supporting all-purpose jurisdiction | Marathon: Incorporated in Delaware, principal place of business in Ohio; Louisiana operations, though significant, are not so continuous/systematic as to render Marathon “at home” in Louisiana | Held: No general jurisdiction. Marathon is not essentially at home in Louisiana; its in-state contacts fall short of the exceptional Perkins-level of presence required for general jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- McFadin v. Gerber, 587 F.3d 753 (5th Cir. 2009) (framework for long-arm and due process inquiry)
- Guidry v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 188 F.3d 619 (5th Cir. 1999) (Louisiana long-arm tied to Due Process Clause)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts standard)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment and nexus)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (U.S. 2011) (distinguishing general and specific jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (U.S. 2014) (general jurisdiction requires being “at home” in the forum)
- Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Ritter, 768 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2014) (three-part specific-jurisdiction test)
- Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266 (5th Cir. 2006) (product reaches end of stream at point of sale; buyer’s unilateral movement insufficient)
- Irvin v. S. Snow Mfg., Inc., [citation="517 F. App'x 229"] (5th Cir. 2013) (insufficient nexus between defendant’s forum contacts and the product that caused injury)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (U.S. 2017) (limits on general jurisdiction; substantial in-state operations still may be insufficient)