IronHorse Enterprises LLC v. Southern Specialties Transportation LLC

Filing 24

ORDER granting 19 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration; vacating 18 10/27/2017 Order; granting 9 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction; and dismissing this case. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 1/2/2018. (cmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION

IRONHORSE ENTERPRISES, LLC

PLAINTIFF

4:17-CV-00444-BRW
SOUTHERN SPECIALTIES
TRANSPORTATION, LLC

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Pending is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 19). Plaintiff has
responded.1 For the reasons set out below, the Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED.
Accordingly, the October 27, 2017 Order (Doc. No. 18) is VACATED, and Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED.
I.

BACKGROUND
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff is an Arkansas limited liability company authorized

to do business in Arkansas. Defendant is a Louisiana limited liability company that is registered
to do business in Oklahoma. The lawsuit is based on an alleged breach of contract for work to
be done in Oklahoma.
II.

DISCUSSION
On October 27, 2017, I denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal

Jurisdiction after finding that Defendant had purposely conducted activities in Arkansas (though
very limited) and Defendant’s CFO is the registered agent for process, who has an Arkansas
address for service. Defendant contends that the ruling was erroneous because “registering to do
business in Arkansas alone does not create a basis for personal jurisdiction.”2 As previously

1

Doc. No. 23.

2

Doc. No. 19-1.
1

noted, Defendant was registered to do business and, in fact, did business in Arkansas. However,
after reviewing the submissions again, I believe Defendant had insufficient contacts to permit
personal jurisdiction.
Plaintiff argues that Defendant is present in and has done business in Arkansas.
However, it is undisputed that the only business Defendant ever did in Arkansas involved “two
disposals of materials for customers in January and February” of 2017.3 This did not involve
Plaintiff. So, Defendant’s contacts with Arkansas have no connection to the claims in this case.
Plaintiff also points out that “most of the negotiations with the Plaintiff took place in
Arkansas through the use of multiple phone calls initiated by Defendant as well as emails and
text messages.”4 However, it is well established that these types of “contacts” alone are
insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.5
Importantly, no in-person negotiations occurred in Arkansas; the agreement between the
parties did not involve Arkansas; and the property at issue is not in Arkansas. In fact, the only
connection between this case and Arkansas is the fact that it is the state where Plaintiff resides.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law above, Defendant’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of January, 2018.

/s/ Billy Roy Wilson ___________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Doc. No. 9-2.

4

Doc. No. 23.

5

Tutu Couture, Inc. v. SML Sport LLC, No. 5:12-CV-05195, 2013 WL 395711, at *6
(W.D. Ark. Jan. 31, 2013) (“[N]o personal jurisdiction exists if the connection between a
defendant and the forum state is limited to emails, calls, and faxes sent back and forth between
the parties in furtherance of a contract.”) (citing cases).
2