Tour Strategy LLC v. Star-Telegram, Inc.
4:18-cv-00074
N.D. Tex.Apr 20, 2018Background
- Tour Strategy LLC (d/b/a Redan Bilingual Media) sued Star-Telegram, Inc. (STI) and later added McClatchy U.S.A., Inc. and Valassis; claims arise from disputes over two advertising contracts.
- McClatchy removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Plaintiff's operative pleading (second amended petition) contained minimal factual allegations regarding McClatchy—only two brief mentions—without alleging contacts in Texas or any specific acts by McClatchy in Texas.
- McClatchy submitted affidavits and corporate records showing it is headquartered in California, conducts no business in Texas, has no contract or affiliation with plaintiff, and is a separate entity from STI (McClatchy only owns/maintains STI’s trademark).
- Plaintiff contended (in response) generally that McClatchy was “substantially involved” in the underlying facts and suggested it might have named the wrong McClatchy entity, but offered no contrary jurisdictional evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court has specific personal jurisdiction over McClatchy | McClatchy was substantially involved in facts underlying the suit and therefore its actions support jurisdiction | McClatchy has no Texas contacts, did no business in Texas, and had no contracts or dealings with plaintiff | No specific jurisdiction: plaintiff failed to allege McClatchy’s forum contacts or that claims arise from such contacts |
| Whether court has general personal jurisdiction over McClatchy | Implied that McClatchy’s involvement in the overall dispute makes it subject to suit in Texas | McClatchy is not “at home” in Texas (incorporated/PPB in CA; no continuous/systematic Texas activities) | No general jurisdiction: McClatchy’s contacts are not continuous/systematic or sufficient to render it essentially at home in Texas |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644 (5th Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to establish personal jurisdiction)
- WNS, Inc. v. Farrow, 884 F.2d 200 (5th Cir.) (prima facie showing suffices at jurisdictional stage)
- Jones v. Petty-Ray Geophysical Geosource, Inc., 954 F.2d 1061 (5th Cir.) (resolve conflicts in plaintiff’s favor on jurisdictional facts)
- Bullion v. Gillespie, 895 F.2d 212 (5th Cir.) (Texas long-arm reaches constitutional limits)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts standard)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment and claim-relatedness)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (general jurisdiction requires continuous and systematic contacts)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (corporation is subject to general jurisdiction only where it is essentially at home)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (paradigm bases for general jurisdiction are place of incorporation and principal place of business)
- Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Ritter, 768 F.3d 429 (plaintiff must plead jurisdictional facts with reasonable particularity)
- Command-Aire Corp. v. Ontario Mech. Sales & Serv., Inc., 963 F.2d 90 (court may resolve jurisdictional issues using affidavits and record)
- Wyatt v. Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276 (complaint allegations taken as true unless contradicted by defendant’s evidence)
- Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (example of general jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances)