Wilson v. BelinWilson v. Belin
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:
The question presented in this case is whether a federal district court sitting in Texas has personal jurisdiction over two out-of-state defendants. In fact, none of the parties are Texas residents. The plaintiff, a Pennsylvania resident, filed this defamation suit in Texas state court against an Indiana resident and an Iowa resident. The genesis of this lawsuit is in a speech the plaintiff made in Dallas concerning the Kennedy assassination. A Dallas reporter telephoned the defendants in Indiana and Iowa, respectively, for a response to the speech. The reporter then purportedly quoted the defendants’ reactions in a newspaper article. The plaintiff claims that the defendants’ negative remarks libeled him in Texas. After removal, the federal district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm.
I
During the symposium, Mark Potok, a reporter for the Dallas Times Herald, telephoned Robert Blakey, who served as chief counsel and staff director of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, to discuss Wilson‘s conclusions. The reporter also called David Belin, who served as assistant counsel to the Warren Commission to discuss Wilson‘s comments. Both Blakey and Belin received the calls in their respective states of residence—Indiana and Iowa.
On November 16, 1991, the Dallas Times Herald published an article written by Mr. Potok that quoted Mr. Blakey as saying, “You know the saying among computer people, ‘Garbage in, garbage out?’ This is garbage.” The article quoted Mr. Belin as saying, “It‘s a series of massive lies. The man is basically making an outrageous claim.”
II
On September 3, 1992, Wilson filed a bill of discovery in Texas state court to depose Potok to determine if he misquoted
On September 2, 1993, the district court granted Blakey and Wilson‘s motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that the court lacked specific and general personal jurisdiction over them. Wilson filed this appeal.
III
In a diversity suit, a federal court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the same extent that a state court in that forum has such jurisdiction. Bullion v. Gillespie, 895 F.2d 213, 215 (5th Cir.1990);
The exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident will not violate due process principles if two requirements are met. First, the nonresident defendant must have purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of the forum state by establishing “minimum contacts” with that forum state. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Bullion, 895 F.2d at 216. And second, the exercise of jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant must not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 113, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 1033, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987) (citing International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S.Ct. at 158).
The “minimum contacts” prong of the inquiry may be further subdivided into contacts that give rise to “specific” personal
If a nonresident defendant has sufficient related or unrelated minimum contacts with the forum, we must then consider whether the “fairness” prong of the jurisdictional inquiry is satisfied. See Asahi, 480 U.S. at 105, 107 S.Ct. at 1033; Bullion, 895 F.2d at 216. The Supreme Court has stated that the “fairness” of requiring a nonresident to defend a suit in a distant forum is a function of several factors, including the “interests of the forum State.”3 Asahi, 480 U.S. at 113, 107 S.Ct. at 1033.
IV
A
Wilson first argues that the district court had specific personal jurisdiction over Blakey and Belin because each of them spoke with a Texas newspaper reporter and thus reasonably could
In Calder, 465 U.S. at 788-90, 104 S.Ct. at 1486-87, a reporter for a Florida publication researched a story in California, wrote a story about a California resident whose career was centered in California, and provided that story to his (the defendant reporter‘s) employer, which had a substantial portion of its national circulation in California. The Court stated that the defendants’ (the reporter‘s and his editor‘s) “actions were expressly aimed at California” because they wrote and edited “an article that they knew would have a potentially devastating impact upon [the plaintiff in California].” Id. at 789, 104 S.Ct. at 1487. In the instant case, however, neither Blakey nor Belin did any preparation for a story to defame the plaintiff. They did not even write or devise a story. They did no research regarding Wilson‘s theory in Texas or elsewhere. Furthermore, there is no indication that these defendants were paid for their comments, that their comments were part of a planned business venture, or that such unsolicited comments served any role in advancing their
Wilson also places great weight on the premise that a libelous tort is deemed to have occurred where the offending material is circulated. See Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 777, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 1479, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577A, Comment a (1977)). This principle alone, however, will not win the day for Wilson. That the tort is deemed to have occurred in whole or in part in Texas is simply not dispositive of whether jurisdiction is appropriate. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 288-89, 100 S.Ct. 559, 562-63, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980) (holding that although tort occurred in Oklahoma, New York defendant was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Oklahoma by nonresident plaintiff).
Wilson also argues foreseeability as a basis for specific personal jurisdiction. The defendants, he argues, could foresee that the defamatory remarks would be published in Texas. The Supreme Court has stated, however, that:
“[F]oreseeability” alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause.... [T]he foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis is ... that the defendant‘s conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.
World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 295, 297, 100 S.Ct. at 566, 567 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
In this connection, the Supreme Court has held that a defendant could “reasonably anticipate being haled into court” when
Similarly, the facts in the instant case are distinguishable from Brown v. Flowers Indus., Inc., 688 F.2d 328 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1023, 103 S.Ct. 1275, 75 L.Ed.2d 496 (1983), where we held that personal jurisdiction in Mississippi was proper over an out-of-state resident who made a phone call to Mississippi to defame a Mississippi resident. In so holding, we emphasized that the defendant initiated the defamatory phone call. Id. at 334 & n. 15 (differentiating McBreen v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 543 F.2d 26, 31 (7th Cir.1976), in which the court held that jurisdiction was improper, in part, because the defendant did not initiate the phone call). Here, the defendants did not execute a prearranged plan by initiating a communication to Texas aimed at a Texas resident. Instead, Blakey and Belin, while sitting unsuspectingly
B
Next, Wilson argues that the district court has general personal jurisdiction over Blakey and Belin because of the unrelated contacts each had with Texas. In resolving this issue we first turn to the Supreme Court‘s seminal case on this point: Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952). In Perkins, id. at 438, 72 S.Ct. at 438, the Supreme Court upheld the district court‘s exercise of general personal jurisdiction in Ohio over a Philippine corporation that had temporarily relocated to Ohio. The Court held that the corporation‘s general contacts with Ohio, although unrelated to the cause of action, would support the exercise of general personal jurisdiction because they were “continuous and systematic.” Id. Some twenty years later, in Keeton, 465 U.S. at 779 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. at 1481 n. 11, the Supreme Court gave a concise explanation of why general jurisdiction was appropriate in Perkins. The Keeton Court, emphasized that unrelated contacts must be “substantial” in order to support general jurisdiction:
In Perkins, ... [the corporation‘s] president, who was also general manager and principal stockholder of the company,
returned to his home in Ohio where he carried on “a continuous and systematic supervision of the necessarily limited wartime activities of the company....” The company‘s files were kept in Ohio, several directors’ meetings were held there, substantial accounts were maintained in Ohio banks, and all key business decisions were made in the State.... In those circumstances, Ohio was the corporation‘s principal, if temporary, place of business so that Ohio jurisdiction was proper even over a cause of action unrelated to the activities in the State.
In the instant case, Wilson argues that the assertion of general personal jurisdiction over Blakey is warranted because of his various unrelated contacts with Texas. Wilson first points to Blakey‘s relationship with a Texas law firm. Blakey carried his
Wilson also asserts that Belin had a number of unrelated contacts with Texas that will support the exercise of general personal jurisdiction over him. Wilson points out that, in the last five years, Belin made a few trips to Texas during which he gave interviews concerning the Kennedy assassination. On one occasion, during a several-hour layover at a Dallas airport, Belin visited the Texas School Book Depository. Wilson further points out that on another occasion Belin engaged in discussions with an investment banking firm in Texas on behalf of a nonresident corporation in which he owned a small interest and served as
Our examination of Blakey‘s and Belin‘s activities in Texas, in toto, leads us to the conclusion that their unrelated contacts with Texas were not as “continuous and systematic” and, in any event, were not as “substantial” as the nonresident defendant‘s contacts in Perkins. We simply cannot say that because of these various brief contacts with Texas that either of these defendants should have reasonably expected to be sued in Texas on any matter, however remote from these contacts. They simply were not substantial enough to give rise to such an expectation.7 Neither Blakey nor Belin conducted regular business in Texas. They never made all or even a substantial part of their business decisions in Texas, did not keep bank accounts in Texas, did not hold directors’ meetings in Texas, and did not maintain their files in Texas. Cf. Perkins, 342 U.S. at 448, 72 S.Ct. at 419. Even if Blakey‘s contacts with Texas via his short-lived malpractice insurance arrangement through a Texas law firm and his multi-year pro bono association with the historical society were arguably continuous, we hold that they were not substantial enough to warrant the