United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
SHALETHA PAGE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILDREN K.K. AND H.M.
JNJ EXPRESS, INC. ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
April 24, 2016, plaintiff Shaletha Page (“Page”)
was driving southbound on I-55 in Batesville, Mississippi,
with her two minor children. At the same time, the driver of a
tractor-trailer owned by defendant JNJ Express, Inc.
(“JNJ”) and insured by defendant Cherokee
Insurance Company (“Cherokee”) (collectively,
“defendants”) attempted to merge into Page's
lane of traffic. The tractor-trailer struck Page's
vehicle in the process, injuring Page and her
of whom is incorporated, nor maintains its principal place of
business, in Louisiana-now move to dismiss Page's case under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal
jurisdiction and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(3) for improper venue. As an alternative to dismissal
and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a),  defendants ask
the Court to consider transferring the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi,
Oxford Division-the federal judicial district in which the
accident occurred. Page opposes the motion.
power of the Court to require a nonresident defendant to
appear before it and to submit to its will is a great
power-one that the Court may exercise only within
constitutional and statutory bounds. As the Fifth Circuit has
explained, “[a] federal court may exercise personal
jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if (1) the forum
state's long-arm statute confers personal jurisdiction
over that defendant; and (2) the exercise of personal
jurisdiction comports with the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.” McFadin v. Gerber, 587
F.3d 753, 759 (5th Cir. 2009). “In determining whether
a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction, a district
court must accept as true the uncontroverted factual
allegations in the plaintiff's complaint; a prima
facie showing is all that is required.”
Companion Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Palermo, 723
F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal citations omitted).
long-arm statute “extends personal jurisdiction of
courts sitting in Louisiana, including federal courts, to the
limits permitted under the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.” Guidry v. U.S. Tobacco
Co., 188 F.3d 619, 624 (5th Cir. 1999); see
also La. R.S. § 13:3201 (Louisiana's long-arm
statute). Thus, whether the Court possesses personal
jurisdiction over the nonresident defendants in this case
“depends on the parameters of federal due
process.” Telephone Elec. Corp. v. S. Pac.
Telecomm. Co., No. 95-31037, 1996 WL 556856, at *2 (5th
Cir. Sept. 10, 1996).
Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause “protects
an individual's liberty interest in not being subject to
the binding judgments of a forum with which he has
established no meaningful contacts, ties, or
relations.” Guidry, 188 F.3d at 624 (internal
quotation marks omitted); see also U.S. Const.
amend. XIV, § 1. “Personal jurisdiction comports
with due process when first, the defendant has the requisite
minimum contacts with the forum state and second, requiring
the defendant to submit to jurisdiction in the forum state
would not infringe on ‘traditional notions of fair play
and substantial justice.'” Companion Prop. &
Cas., 723 F.3d at 559 (quoting Asahi Metal Indus.
Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 105 (1987);
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316
‘minimum contacts' prong of the due process
analysis may be subdivided into two different classifications
of personal jurisdiction depending on the types of contacts
the nonresident defendant has with the forum
state”-namely, “specific” personal
jurisdiction and “general” personal jurisdiction.
Telephone Elec. Corp., 1996 WL 556856, at *2.
For specific personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff makes a
prima facie showing of minimum contacts when his
claim arises from the defendant's contact with the forum.
For general personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff makes the
requisite showing when that defendant's contacts are
“continuous and systematic, ” so that the
exercise of jurisdiction is proper irrespective of the
claim's relationship to the defendant's contact with
Companion Prop. & Cas., 723 F.3d at 559.
the “touchstone” of the minimum contacts inquiry
“is whether the defendant's conduct shows that it
reasonably anticipates being haled into court.”
McFadin, 587 F.3d at 759 (internal quotation marks
omitted). “The defendant must not be haled into a
jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or
attenuated contacts, or of the unilateral activity of another
party or third person.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted).
concedes that she is unable to make the necessary prima
facie showing to support the Court's exercise of
specific personal jurisdiction over defendants in this
case. Therefore, the Court must determine
whether Page has alleged facts ...