Russell Energy, Inc. v. Rubrecht et al
Filing
39
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 27 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Ordered that the Plaintiff's claims against Ronald Rubrecht are dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 8/15/18. (JCH)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RUSSELL ENERGY, INC.,
also known as Russell
Energy Partners, Inc.
PLAINTIFF
v.
CAUSE NO. 1:18cv89-LG-RHW
RONALD RUBRECHT;
DREW GARLAND; TURBINE
DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES, INC.;
GARLAND BROTHERS, INC.;
GEORGIA RENEWABLE
POWER, LLC; UNKNOWN
PURCHASER; UNKNOWN
JOHN AND JANE DOES A, B,
C; and OTHER UNKNOWN
CORPORATE ENTITIES X, Y, Z
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
RONALD RUBRECHT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
BEFORE THE COURT is the [27] Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction filed by the defendant Ronald Rubrecht. The parties have fully briefed
the Motion. After reviewing the submissions of the parties, the record in this
matter, and the applicable law, the Court finds that Rubrecht’s Motion to Dismiss
should be granted.
BACKGROUND
The plaintiff, Russell Energy, Inc., claims that it entered into a NonDisclosure, Non-Circumvention, and Non-Competition Agreement with Ronald
Rubrecht and Turbine Diagnostic Services on July 11, 2016, after Rubrecht asked
Russell “to find a generator for one of Rubrecht’s clients to buy.” (Compl. 4, ECF
No. 1-1.)1 Russell then contacted the defendant Drew Garland of Garland Brothers,
who told him about a generator owned by Georgia Renewable. Russell claims that
Garland improperly used confidential information he obtained from Russell to
complete the sale of the generator with Rubrecht without Russell’s participation.
Russell filed this lawsuit against several defendants, including Rubrecht,
who is a resident of Florida. Russell attempts to assert the following claims: breach
of confidentiality, breach of non-circumvention, breach of non-competition, breach of
non-disclosure, breach of implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing, civil
conspiracy to defraud, and unfair and deceptive acts. Rubrecht filed the present
Motion, asking the Court to dismiss Russell’s claims against him due to lack of
personal jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
“‘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.’” Int’l Energy Ventures Mgmt., L.L.C.
v. United Energy Grp., Ltd., 818 F.3d 193, 212 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation
Rubrecht is the president of Turbine. The first paragraph of the NonCircumvention, Non-Disclosure, and Confidentiality Agreement entered into on
July 11, 2016, provides that the parties to the agreement are Russell and the
defendant Turbine. (Compl., Ex. B, ECF No. 1-1.) Rubrecht signed the Agreement
on behalf of Turbine, as its president. (Id.) “Although an agent enters into a
contract on behalf of the principal, the agent does not become a party to the contract
and is not responsible for its breach.” Culpepper Enters. Inc. v. Parker, No. 2016CA-01771-COA, 2018 WL 37838178, at *11 (¶56) (Miss. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2018)
(citing Johnson v. Rimes, 890 F. Supp. 2d 743, 745 (S.D. Miss. 2012)).
1
-2-
marks and brackets omitted). The plaintiff “need only make a prima facie case if
the district court rules without an evidentiary hearing.” Johnston v. Multidata Sys.
Int’l Corp., 523 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2008). “Moreover, on a motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction, 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 for purposes of determining whether a
prima facie case for personal jurisdiction exists.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
I. MISSISSIPPI LONG-ARM STATUTE
The Mississippi long-arm statute provides in pertinent part:
Any nonresident person . . . who shall make a contract with a resident
of this state to be performed in whole or in part by any party in this
state, or who shall commit a tort in whole or in part in this state
against a resident or nonresident of this state, or who shall do any
business or perform any character of work or service in this state, shall
by such act or acts be deemed to be doing business in Mississippi and
shall thereby be subjected to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state.
Miss. Code ' 13-3-57. The three prongs of the statute are commonly referred to as
the “contract prong,” the “tort prong,” and the “doing business prong.”
Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, the doing business prong
“applies to any person or corporation performing any character of work in this
state.” Estate of Jones v. Phillips ex rel. Phillips, 992 So. 2d 1131, 1139 (Miss.
2008). Given the broad reach of the doing business prong, the Court will assume for
purposes of this Motion only that personal jurisdiction over Rubrecht is proper.
-3-
However, the Court must also determine whether it can exercise personal
jurisdiction over Rubrecht under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.
II. THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT’S DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
“The Due Process Clause protects an individual’s liberty interest in not being
subject to the binding judgment of a forum with which he has established no
meaningful contacts, ties, or relations.” ITL Int’l, Inc. v. Constenla, S.A., 669 F.3d
493, 498 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Federal jurisdiction
consistent with due process Amay be general or specific.@ Id. General jurisdiction
requires continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state. In re DuPuy
Orthopaedics, Inc., 888 F.3d 753, 778 (5th Cir. 2018). Specific jurisdiction exists
“where a defendant purposefully directs his activities toward the state . . . , and the
plaintiff’s claim arises out of or is related to the defendant’s forum contacts.” Id.
(internal brackets and quotation marks omitted). “Where the plaintiff alleges
specific jurisdiction, as here, due process requires (1) minimum contacts by the
defendant purposefully directed at the forum state, (2) a nexus between the
defendant=s contacts and the plaintiff’s claims, and (3) that the exercise of
jurisdiction over the defendant be fair and reasonable.” Costensla, 669 F.3d at 498.
The minimum contacts “requirement can be satisfied by a showing that the
defendant purposely directed its activities toward the forum state or purposely
availed itself of the privileges of conducting activities there.” Id. “[R]andom,
fortuitous, or attenuated” contacts are insufficient. Id.
-4-
Russell argues that “Rubrecht purposefully directed his actions towards
[Russell], an entity located in Mississippi. Rubrecht initiated contact with Russell .
. . for purposes of the transaction about which [Russell] has complained and
therefore personally created the connection with the State of Mississippi.” (Pl.’s
Mem. 4, ECF No. 32.)2 The Fifth Circuit has held that “[a] single act directed at the
forum state can confer personal jurisdiction so long as that act gives rise to the
claim asserted, but merely contracting with a resident of the forum state does not
establish minimum contacts.” Moncrief Oil Int’l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 481 F.3d
309, 311 (5th Cir. 2007).3 “An exchange of communications in the course of
developing and carrying out a contract also does not, by itself, constitute the
required purposeful availment of the benefits and protections” of Mississippi law.
Id. at 312. “Otherwise jurisdiction could be exercised based only on the fortuity that
one of the parties happens to reside in the forum state.” Id. Furthermore, “a
plaintiff’s unilateral activities in [the forum state] do not constitute minimum
contacts where the defendant did not perform any of its obligations in [the forum
state], the contract did not require performance in [the forum state], and the
contract is centered outside of [the forum state].” Id.
Although Russell happened to be a resident of Mississippi, the generator that
is the subject of the agreement and this lawsuit was owned by a Georgia limited
Rubrecht counters that contact was actually initiated by Russell but it is not
necessary to resolve this issue.
3 As explained previously, it is arguable that Rubrecht is not a party to the
agreement at issue.
2
-5-
liability company. None of the defendants who were involved in the transaction at
issue are residents of Mississippi. Furthermore, Russell does not allege that
Rubrecht ever traveled to Mississippi to further the transaction. Therefore,
Mississippi was not “the hub of the parties’ activities” and Russell’s presence in
Mississippi was irrelevant to the transaction. See Moncrief, 481 F.3d at 313. As a
result, Rubrecht’s communications with Russell were insufficient to establish
minimum contacts, and this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over
Rubrecht.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction
over Rubrecht.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [27] Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction filed by the defendant Ronald Rubrecht
is GRANTED. The plaintiff’s claims against Rubrecht are DISMISSED for lack of
personal jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 15th day of August, 2018.
s/
Louis Guirola, Jr.
LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-6-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?