Universal Leather, LLC v. KORO AR, S.A., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23059

Background

Koro AR, an Argentine leather manufacturer, sold finished leather to Universal Leather, a North Carolina wholesaler, from 2009–2011; relationship soured and Universal sued in NC state court for breach of contract.
Koro removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, submitting a declaration denying in‑person solicitation in the U.S., stating sales were F.O.B. Argentina and that another Argentine intermediary handled communications.
Universal opposed with affidavits from its assistant manager asserting (contrary to Koro) that Koro employees initiated contact, visited Universal’s NC offices multiple times (at least six visits), made repeated in‑person solicitations and meetings in NC, exchanged weekly e‑mails over two years, and sold over $5 million in goods (160+ shipments to the U.S.).
The magistrate judge and district court found the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of “minimum contacts” and dismissed for lack of specific personal jurisdiction, relying on factors such as performance and delivery in Argentina and absence of Koro’s offices or agents in NC.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo whether Universal made a prima facie showing of purposeful availment and concluded Universal’s affidavits, construed in the plaintiff’s favor, were sufficient to meet that initial burden.
The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded for the district court to complete the jurisdictional inquiry (including whether exercising jurisdiction would be constitutionally reasonable), leaving credibility and evidentiary issues to the district court’s discretion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff made a prima facie showing that defendant purposefully availed itself of North Carolina	Koro initiated contact, sent employees to NC multiple times, solicited business in NC, exchanged frequent e‑mails, and conducted multi‑year, multi‑million dollar transactions	Koro had no offices/agents or property in NC, performed contracts in Argentina, shipments were F.O.B. Argentina, and Koro’s declarations deny NC solicitations	Held for plaintiff: affidavits, taken as true at this stage, suffice to show purposeful availment and require further analysis
Whether district court could discredit plaintiff affidavits at motion‑to‑dismiss stage	Plaintiff: conflicting factual disputes must be resolved in plaintiff’s favor absent an evidentiary hearing	Defendant: plaintiff’s affidavits are contradicted and some statements are inadmissible hearsay	Held for plaintiff: at the prima facie stage court must assume credibility of plaintiff’s affidavits and construe conflicts in plaintiff's favor
Whether F.O.B. Argentina deliveries and performance abroad defeat specific jurisdiction	Plaintiff: in‑person solicitations and sustained business in NC outweigh F.O.B. terms	Defendant: acceptance of delivery in Argentina and performance there show the locus of activity was abroad	Held: F.O.B. delivery and foreign performance are relevant but do not, by themselves, defeat a prima facie showing of purposeful availment here
Whether absence of offices/agents in forum and breaches occurring abroad preclude jurisdiction	Plaintiff: lack of offices is one factor; repeated solicitations, meetings, and targeted communications support jurisdiction	Defendant: absence of physical presence and foreign locus of dispute weigh against jurisdiction	Held: those defendant‑favoring factors are relevant but insufficient at this stage to overcome plaintiff’s prima facie showing

Key Cases Cited

Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (grounds for minimum contacts and due process analysis)
World‑Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (anticipation of being haled into court test)
Consulting Eng’rs Corp. v. Geometric Ltd., 561 F.3d 273 (contacts too attenuated for specific jurisdiction)
Tire Engineering & Rubber Co. v. Shandong Linglong Rubber Co., 682 F.3d 292 (specific v. general jurisdiction and when locus is overwhelmingly abroad)
ESAB Group, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. PLC, 685 F.3d 376 (stream of commerce/targeting analysis)
CFA Inst. v. Inst. of Chartered Fin. Analysts of India, 551 F.3d 285 (weight given where defendant initiated contact and repeatedly reached into forum)
Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390 (plaintiff’s burden at prima facie stage; construe facts in plaintiff’s favor)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and reasonableness factors)