United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS
S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is defendant's motion to dismiss. For the following
reasons, the Court grants the motion.
Wanda Henderson alleges that she suffered serious injuries
after she slipped and fell at a Wendy's in Boutte,
Louisiana. On December 18, 2017, plaintiff filed a
petition for damages in state court against Defendant
Allstate BK Real Estate Holdings, Ltd. Defendant removed
the matter to this Court on January 25, 2018, on the basis of
diversity of citizenship. Defendant now moves to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction.
jurisdiction is “an essential element of the
jurisdiction of a district court, without which the court is
powerless to proceed to an adjudication.” Ruhrgas
AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584 (1999)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A district
court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant if
“(1) the long-arm statute of the forum state creates
personal jurisdiction over the defendant; and (2) the
exercise of personal jurisdiction is consistent with the due
process guarantees of the United States Constitution.”
Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 2002).
Louisiana's long-arm statute, La. R.S. 13:3201, extends
jurisdiction to the limits of due process, the Court need
only consider whether the exercise of jurisdiction in this
case satisfies federal due process requirements. Dickson
Mar. Inc. v. Panalpina, Inc., 179 F.3d 331, 336 (5th
Cir. 1999). The exercise of personal jurisdiction over a
foreign defendant satisfies due process when (1) “that
defendant has purposefully availed himself of the benefits
and protections of the forum state by establishing minimum
contacts with the forum state; and (2) the exercise of
jurisdiction over that defendant does not offend traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
Revell, 317 F.3d at 470 (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). “Sufficient minimum contacts
will give rise to either specific or general
jurisdiction will attach if the defendant has engaged in
“continuous and systematic” activities in the
forum state. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v.
Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415 (1984). Specific jurisdiction
“exists when a nonresident defendant has purposefully
directed its activities at the forum state and the litigation
results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to
those activities.” Panda Brandywine Corp. v.
Potomac Elec. Power Co., 253 F.3d 865, 868 (5th Cir.
2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
bears the burden of showing that personal jurisdiction
exists, but need only present a prima facie case.
See Revell, 317 F.3d at 469. When the district court
rules on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction without an evidentiary hearing, the
“uncontroverted allegations in the plaintiff's
complaint must be taken as true, and conflicts between the
facts contained in the parties' affidavits must be
resolved in the plaintiff's favor.” Johnston v.
Multidata Sys. Int'l Corp., 523 F.3d 602, 609 (5th
Cir. 2008). But the district court is not required “to
credit conclusory allegations, even if uncontroverted.”
Panda Brandywine Corp., 253 F.3d at 869.
is a Texas limited partnership with its principal office in
Sugar Land, Texas. Defendant represents that it has one
general partner and five limited partners, all of whom are
Texas citizens. Defendant further represents that it does
not conduct any business operations in Louisiana, it owns no
property in Louisiana, and it does not own or operate the
subject Wendy's location.
has not responded to the motion to dismiss, and she does not
contest defendant's representation that it conducts no
business in Louisiana. The petition does not specifically
allege that defendant owns or operates the Wendy's in
Boutte. Although the petition refers to the
subject Wendy's as “the store of the
above-mentioned defendant, ” plaintiff offers no
additional details regarding defendant's relationship
with the Wendy's location or the state of
Louisiana. This description of the store is too
vague and conclusory to support jurisdiction. See Panda
Brandywine Corp., 253 F.3d at 869. Because plaintiff
presents no facts to indicate that defendant has established
minimum contacts with Louisiana, the Court lacks
jurisdiction. Plaintiffs complaint must be dismissed.