Case 3:18-cv-01095-SDD-EWD Document 58 03/24/20 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA FUFC, LLC CIVIL ACTION VERSUS 18-1095 EXCEL CONTRACTORS, LLC, ET AL. RULING This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss1 by Scott Butaud (“Butaud”). Excel Contractors, LLC (“Excel”) has filed an Opposition2 to this motion. For the following reasons, Butaud’s Motion is DENIED under Rule 12(b)(2) and GRANTED under Rule 12(b)(6).3 I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY FUFC filed a Complaint4 on December 21, 2018 against Excel Contractors, alleging that after FUFC purchased the accounts receivable of Superior Disaster Relief, LLC (“Superior”), FUFC acquired invoices submitted to Excel by Superior. Because Superior had failed to pay for various goods and services, Excel became aware that multiple material suppliers hold or may hold claims against it due to Superior’s failure to pay for the goods and services supplied. In summary, various suppliers in Puerto Rico sold materials to Superior, who then invoiced Excel for the materials. Superior then sold those invoices to FUFC, who now has filed suit seeking 1 Rec. Doc. 35. 2 Rec. Doc. 37. 3 Rec. Doc. 35. 4 Rec. Doc. 1. 59449 Page 1 of 20 Case 3:18-cv-01095-SDD-EWD Document 58 03/24/20 Page 2 of 20 to compel Excel to pay it for the materials sold by the various suppliers in Puerto Rico. Consequently, because the funds sought by FUFC and potentially by the Puerto Rican suppliers are common in origin, Excel filed for statutory interpleader5 and was permitted to deposit funds into the registry of the Court.6 Excel also filed a Third Party Complaint asserting claims against Superior and Butaud.7 II. LAW AND ANALYSIS The Court first considers Butaud’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. A. Rule 12(b)(2) i. Legal Standard “A federal district court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the same extent as a state court in the state in which the district court is located.”8 Thus, personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant attaches only when a defendant is amenable to service of process under the forum state's long-arm statute and the exercise of jurisdiction comports with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.9 “Federal courts ordinarily follow state law in determining the bounds of their jurisdiction over persons.”10 “This is because a federal district court’s authority to assert personal jurisdiction in most cases is linked to service of process on a defendant ‘who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general 5 Rec. Doc. 14. 6 Rec. Doc. 57. 7 Rec. Doc. 7. 8 Walk Haydel & Assoc., Inc. v. Coastal Power Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 235, 242 (5th Cir. 2008). 9 LA. REV. STAT. art. 13:3201. 10 Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283 (2014) (quoting Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. at 125 (2014)). 59449 Page 2 of 20 Case 3:18-cv-01095-SDD-EWD Document 58 03/24/20 Page 3 of 20 jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located.”11 Consequently, the Court shall apply Louisiana law on personal jurisdiction to determine whether it has personal jurisdiction over Butaud. The Due Process and Long Arm Statute queries merge into one because Louisiana's long-arm statute extends jurisdiction coextensively with the limits of the Due Process Clause.12 Due process is satisfied for personal jurisdiction purposes when: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of the forum state by establishing “minimum contacts” with that state, and (2) the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”13 The “purposeful availment must be such that the defendant ‘should reasonably anticipate being haled into court’ in the forum state.”14 The “minimum contacts” prong is split into two forms: general personal jurisdiction and specific personal jurisdiction.15 “Once a plaintiff has established minimum contacts, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the assertion of jurisdiction would be unfair.”16 “Even if minimum contacts exist, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant will fail to satisfy due process requirements if the assertion of jurisdiction offends ‘traditional 11 Id. (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 4(k)(1)(a)). 12 Moncrief Oil Int'l, Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 481 F.3d 309, 311 (5th Cir. 2007); St. Martin & Mahoney v. Patton, 863 F.Supp. 311, 313–14 (E.D.La.1994). 13 Mark Doyle Construction, LLC v. TriHM Found., LLC, 2018 WL 3763014 at *6 (W.D. La. 2018) (citing Choice Healthcare, Inc. v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of Colo., 615 F.3d 364, 367 (5th Cir. 2010)). 14 Ruston Gas Turbines, Inc. v. Donaldson Co., Inc., 9 F.3d 415, 419 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980)). See also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (“This ‘purposeful availment requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ contacts.”) (citations omitted); In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, 742 F.3d 576, 588 (5th Cir. 2014). 15 Choice Healthcare, 615 F.3d at 368. 16 Walk Haydel, 517 F.3d at 245 (quoting Wien Air Alaska, Inc. v. Brandt, 195 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 1999)). 59449 Page 3 of 20 Case 3:18-cv-01095-SDD-EWD Document 58 03/24/20 Page 4 of 20 notions of fair play and substantial justice.’”17 The second prong of the Due Process Clause analysis requires the Court to consider (1) the defendant’s burden, (2) the forum state’s interests; (3) the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective relief; (4) the judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution of controversies; and (5) the state’s shared interest in furthering fundamental social policies.18 Where a defendant has “substantial” and “continuous and systematic general business contacts” with the forum state, the court may exercise general personal jurisdiction over any action brought against the defendant.19 General personal jurisdiction is therefore appropriate when the defendant is essentially “at home in the forum state.”20 The “continuous and systematic contacts test is difficult to meet,”21 and its purpose is to enable potential defendants to “structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit.”22 “[V]ague and overgeneralized assertions that give no indication as to the extent, duration, or frequency of contacts are insufficient to support general jurisdiction.”23 Where contacts are less pervasive, a court may still exercise specific jurisdiction “in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum”24 when the 17 Ruston Gas Turbines, 9 F.3d at 421 (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). 18 Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc., 445 F.3d 809 (2006) (citing Ruston Gas Turbines, 9 F.3d at 421). 19 Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 127 (2014). See also Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984). 20 Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011). 21 Blue Racer Midstream, LLC v. Kelchner, Inc., 2018 WL 993782 at *2 (N.D. Tex. 2018) (citing Johnston v. Multidata Systems Int’l Corp., 523 F.3d 602, 610 (5th Cir. 2008)). 22 Burger King, 471 U.S. at 472. 23 Cent. Freight Lines v. APA Transp. Corp., 322 F.3d 376, 381 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting Johnston, 523 F.3d at 609). 24 Id. at 414; Luv N' Care, Ltd., v. Insta–Mix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465, 469 (5th Cir. 2006). 59449 Page 4 of 20 Case 3:18-cv-01095-SDD-EWD Document 58 03/24/20 Page 5 of 20 “nonresident defendant has purposefully directed its activities at the forum state.”25 The Fifth Circuit follows a three-step analysis for specific personal jurisdiction. First, a court must determine “whether the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state, i.e., whether it purposely directed its activities toward the forum state or purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting activities there.”26 This minimum contacts/purposeful availment inquiry is fact intensive. No one element is decisive, and the number of contacts with the forum state is not, by itself, determinative.27 A single, substantial act directed toward the forum can support specific jurisdiction,28 but even multiple contacts, if “[r]andom, fortuitous, or attenuated . are not sufficient to establish jurisdiction.”29 For the purposes of specific personal jurisdiction, what is significant is whether the contacts suggest that the nonresident defendant purposefully availed himself of the privileges or benefits of the laws of the forum state.30 Second, a court considers “whether the plaintiff's cause of action arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-related contacts.”31 At this step, the proper focus in the analysis is on the “relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.”32 This is a claim-specific inquiry, as “the Due Process Clause prohibits the exercise of jurisdiction over any claim that does not arise out of or result from the defendant's forum 25 Choice Healthcare, 615 F.3d at 368 (quoting Walk Haydel, 517 F.3d at 243).