Haskett v. Continental Land Resources, LLC et al
ORDER denying 60 Motion to Vacate; denying as moot 62 Motion to Strike; denying as moot 87 Motion for Leave to File.(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified. Copy to Plaintiff via reg. mail. (dperez, 3)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
PHILLIP DAVID HASKETT,
CONTINENTAL LAND RESOURCES,
LLC, et al,
January 03, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-281
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, MOTION TO STRIKE, AND
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT
After remand from the Fifth Circuit, Phillip Haskett now asks this Court to
“partially vacate a final order pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2) & (3); 60(d)(1) & (3).” Dkt. 60.
Essentially, Haskett complains that one of the Defendants he originally sued in this case
was dismissed, incorrectly, for lack of personal jurisdiction. Haskett points to newly
discovered documents that he describes as evidence that this Court actually does have
personal jurisdiction over that Defendant, and he thus asks this Court to reconsider the
The Court declines to do so. First, the documents to which Haskett point have
multiple evidentiary problems and objections have been lodged against them. Even if
this Court were to consider the documents, however, they do not show that this Court has
general or specific jurisdiction over the Defendant. At most, Haskett’s allegations and
proposed documents, taken together, show that the Defendant had an interest in taxable
personal property in Travis County, Texas in 2015.
This is a far cry from the “continuous and systematic contacts” needed to establish
that this Court has general jurisdiction over a defendant. “The proper forum for
exercising general jurisdiction over a corporation is one in which a corporation is fairly
regarded at home.” Patterson v. Aker Sols. Inc., 826 F.3d 231, 234 (5th Cir. 2016).
Haskett does not allege that this defendant was incorporated within the State of Texas, or
that Travis County was the defendant’s principal place of business. Nor are there any
other “exceptional circumstances” of the kind that might support general jurisdiction. Id.
at 237 (citing Daimler AG v. Bauman, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 746, 761, 187 L.Ed.2d
624 (2014) and Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Ritter, 768 F.3d 429, 432 (5th Cir. 2014)
(noting that “[i]t is ... incredibly difficult to establish general jurisdiction in a forum other
than the place of incorporation or principal place of business.”)).
Nor do the documents support specific jurisdiction. The Fifth Circuit frames the
specific jurisdiction issue with a three-step analysis: (1) 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; (2) whether the plaintiff's cause of action arises out of or results from the
defendant's forum related contacts; and (3) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction
is fair and reasonable. Monkton Ins. Servs., 768 F.3d at 433 (citing Seiferth v.
Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266, 271 (5th Cir. 2006)). Even if this Court were
to find that Haskett’s documents and allegations pass the first step, he fails at the second.
There is no allegation or evidence to show that the Defendant’s alleged physical presence
in Travis County in 2015 is related, in any way, to Haskett’s claim that the Defendant
wrongfully discriminated against him by failing to hire him because of his age after he
applied via the internet as a contract landman for jobs located in various locations
between 2012 and 2014.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Haskett’s Motion to Vacate. Dkt. 60. Further,
Defendant’s Motion to Strike, Dkt. 62, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a
Surreply, Dkt. 87, are both DENIED AS MOOT.
SIGNED at Galveston, Texas, this 3rd day of January, 2017.
George C. Hanks Jr.
United States District Judge
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?