Williams et al v. Rust Engineering & Construction, Inc. et al

Filing 15

ORDER AND REASONS granting 9 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Party Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, N.V. dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo. (ecm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BRECK WILLIAMS, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 16-13136

RUST ENGINEERING &
CONSTRUCTION CO., ET AL

SECTION: “H”(2)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Fiat S.p.A.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9).
Plaintiffs have not opposed this Motion. For the following reasons, the Motion
is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Breck Williams and Tarsi Williams, the children of decedent
Frank Williams, filed this suit in Louisiana state court on June 2, 2016. Frank
Williams contracted mesothelioma and died as a result of asbestos exposure
while working at the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility from 1966 to 1968 and
1974 to 1993.

Plaintiffs aver that Defendants Rust Engineers and

Construction, Inc., Global Associates, and Fiat S.p.A. were responsible for the
installation, use, and maintenance of the injury-causing asbestos and seek
damages under Louisiana law. Defendant Fiat S.p.A. is no longer in existence,
1

however, its successor corporation, Fiat Chrysler N.V., has appeared specially
and filed the instant Motion to Dismiss, challenging both the Court’s personal
jurisdiction over it and the sufficiency of service of process. Plaintiffs have not
opposed this Motion. Because the jurisdictional issue is dispositive of the
matter, the Court will address that issue first.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Where a defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, the party seeking
to invoke the power of the court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction
exists.”1 When a court rules on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction without holding an evidentiary hearing, as in this case, the
plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. 2 “The
allegations of the complaint, except insofar as controverted by opposing
affidavits, must be taken as true, and all conflicts in the facts must be resolved
in favor of the plaintiff[] for purposes of determining whether a prima facie
case for personal jurisdiction has been established.”3 “In determining whether
personal jurisdiction exists, the trial court is not restricted to a review of the
plaintiff's pleadings.”4 The Court may consider matters outside the complaint,
including affidavits, interrogatories, depositions, or any combination of the
recognized methods of discovery.5 Jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant
is proper when (1) the defendant is amenable to service of process under the
long-arm statute of the forum state and (2) the exercise of personal jurisdiction

Luv N'care, Ltd. v. Insta–Mix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465, 469 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing Wyatt v.
Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276, 280 (5th Cir. 1982)).
2 Guidry v. U.S. Tobacco, Co., Inc., 188 F.3d 619, 625 (5th Cir. 1999).
3 Thompson v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 755 F.2d 1162, 1165 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing
DeMelo v. Toche Marine, Inc., 711 F.2d 1260, 1270 (5th Cir. 1983).
4 Jobe v. ATR Mktg., Inc., 87 F.3d 751, 753 (5th Cir. 1996).
5 Id. (citing Colwell Realty Invs. v. Triple T. Inns of Ariz., 785 F.2d 1330 (5th Cir. 1986)).
1

2

is consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.6 In
the instant case, “these two inquiries merge into one because Louisiana's longarm statute permits service of process coterminous with the scope of the due
process clause.”7 “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
protects a corporation, as it does an individual, against being made subject to
the binding judgments of a forum with which it has established no meaningful
‘contacts, ties, or relations.’” A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a
non-resident defendant when (1) the defendant has purposefully availed itself
of the benefits and protections of the forum state by establishing “minimum
contacts” with the forum state and (2) exercising personal jurisdiction over the
defendant does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.”8
“Minimum contacts” can be established through specific jurisdiction or
general jurisdiction.9 Specific personal jurisdiction exists (1) when a defendant
has purposely directed its activities, or availed itself of the privileges of
conducting its activities, toward the forum state; (2) the controversy arises out
of or is related to those activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is fair,
just, and reasonable.10

General personal jurisdiction exists when the

defendant has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the forum
state, regardless of whether such activity is related to the plaintiff's cause of
action.11

Dalton v. R&W Marine, Inc., 897 F.2d 1359, 1361 (5th Cir. 1990).
Software Inc. v. Lexware GMBH & Co. KG, 688 F.2d 214, 220 (5th Cir.
2012) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945)).
8 Latshaw v. Johnston, 167 F.3d 208, 211 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S.
at 316).
9 Alpine View Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000).
10 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985).
11 Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415 (1984).
6

7Pervasive

3

“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.”12 The fairness inquiry is determined by
analyzing several factors: (1) the burden upon the nonresident defendant of
litigating in the forum state; (2) the interests of the forum state; (3) the
plaintiff's interest in securing relief; (4) the judicial system's interest in
obtaining an efficient resolution of controversies; and (5) the shared interest of
the states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.13
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Though Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, the Court may not simply
grant the motion as unopposed. The Fifth Circuit approaches the automatic
grant of dispositive motions with considerable aversion.14 Accordingly, this
Court has considered the merits of Defendant’s motion. The Court addresses
the jurisdictional challenge first.15
In their petition, Plaintiffs make the conclusory allegation that Fiat
S.p.A. is subject to the jurisdiction of Louisiana courts because it was doing
business in Louisiana, made contracts with residents of Louisiana, and
committed torts in Louisiana. “The court is not obligated to credit conclusory

Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644, 647 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v.
Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 105 (1987)).
13 Bullion v. Gillespie, 895 F.2d 213, 216 n.5 (5th Cir. 1990) (internal citations
omitted).
14 See, e.g., Servicios Azucareros de Venezuela, C.A. v. John Deere Thibodeaux, Inc.,
702 F.3d 794, 806 (5th Cir. 2012); Johnson v. Pettiford, 442 F.3d 917, 918 (5th Cir. 2006) (per
curiam); John v. State of Louisiana (Bd. of Trs. for State Colls. and Univs.), 757 F.2d 698,
709 (5th Cir. 1985).
15 See Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (“When a Rule
12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions, the court should consider
the Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack before addressing any attack on the merits.”).
12

4

allegations, even if uncontroverted.”16 Defendant Fiat has presented the Court
with an affidavit indicating that it had no contact of any kind with the state of
Louisiana either at the time Plaintiffs’ father was exposed to asbestos or at the
present time.

Plaintiffs have submitted no evidence to contradict this

statement. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to make out
a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction with regard to Fiat. Accordingly,
Defendant Fiat’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, Defendant Fiat Chrysler N.V.’s Motion to
Dismiss is GRANTED. All claims against this Defendant are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 30th day of November, 2016.

____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Lansing Trade Grp., LLC v. 3B Biofuels GmbH & Co., KG, 612 F. Supp. 2d 813, 819
(S.D. Tex. 2009).
16

5