Aziz v. MMR Group, Inc. et al
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 21 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Original and First Amended Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 17, 2018
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
AJMAL AZIZ,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
v.
MMR GROUP, INC. and MMR
CONSTRUCTORS, INC.,
Defendants.
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-17-3907
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
Ajmal Aziz
( "Aziz"
or
"Plaintiff") ,
filed
this
action on December 28, 2017, against defendants MMR Group, Inc. and
MMR
Constructors,
Inc.
(collectively,
"Defendants"),
asserting
claims for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C.
§
1988,
U.S.C.
42
2000 et seq.
§
Discrimination Act. 1
("Title VII"),
1981
et
seq.,
the Civil Rights Act of
and
the
Texas
Employment
Pending before the court is MMR Group, Inc.'s
and MMR Constructors, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Original
and First Amended Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and
Improper Venue ("Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Original and First
Amended Complaints")
below,
the
court
(Docket Entry No. 21) .
concludes
that
For the reasons stated
Defendants'
Motion
to
Original and First Amended Complaints should be granted.
1
0riginal Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1.
Dismiss
I.
Factual and Procedural Background2
Defendants are Louisiana corporations with their principal
places of business in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
In 2011 Defendants
hired Plaintiff, a Texas resident, as a journeyman C electrician at
Defendants'
South
Carolina
location.
In
2013
Plaintiff
was
transferred to Defendants' Corpus Christi, Texas, location where he
worked until July of 2015.
his
Texas
Plaintiff alleges that in July of 2015
supervisor told him that
transfer to Defendants'
he either had to accept a
Iowa facility or be laid off.
Plaintiff
was subsequently transferred to Iowa and promoted first to lead
journeyman and then to terminator.
Plaintiff alleges that after
the transfer to Iowa he was subjected to discrimination, a hostile
work environment,
and retaliation on the basis of his religion,
race, and color by his Iowa supervisor and co-workers.
Plaintiff
quotes offensive comments that his Iowa supervisor made in 2015 and
2016 while Plaintiff was employed at the Iowa facility.
alleges
that
after he
confronted his
offensive comments he was placed in a
Plaintiff
supervisor regarding
the
lower-paying department.
Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with Defendants' human resources
department.
the
Plaintiff alleges that a human resources employee at
Iowa location stated that
she could not offer assistance.
Plaintiff then contacted a human resources manager at Defendants'
2
See First Amended Complaint,
~~ 20-47.
-2-
Docket Entry No.
20,
pp.
5-9
corporate office in Louisiana who investigated the situation.
The
Louisiana officer informed Plaintiff that no action would be taken
against
the
Iowa
supervisor
and
that
Plaintiff
transferred back to his previous department.
would
not
be
Plaintiff alleges
that after he filed these complaints he was assigned to lower-level
job duties, and constructively discharged in April of 2016.
Plaintiff filed this action on December 28,
that Defendants have engaged in religious,
2017,
racial,
alleging
and/or color
harassment, have created, maintained, and condoned a hostile work
environment,
and have retaliated against Plaintiff. 3
Defendants
move to dismiss the action arguing that the court lacks personal
jurisdiction over them and
venue. 4
that
this
court
is
not
the proper
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 23, 2018. 5
On May 2, 2018, Defendants then filed another motion to dismiss,
adopting and attaching its previous motion. 6
Plaintiff filed a
response, Defendant filed a reply, and Plaintiff filed a surreply. 7
3
0riginal Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 8-10
~~
43-67.
4
MMR Group, Inc. 's and MMR Constructors, Inc. 's Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue
("Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint"), Docket Entry
No. 15.
5
First Amended Complaint, Docket Entry No. 20.
6
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Original and First Amended
Complaints, Docket Entry No. 21.
7
See Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
("Plaintiff's Response"), Docket Entry No. 23; Defendants' Reply
(continued ... )
-3-
II.
A.
Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Personal Jurisdiction
Standard of Review
Dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is governed by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (2).
moves
to
dismiss
for
lack
of
When a foreign defendant
personal
jurisdiction
under
Rule 12 (b) ( 2) , "the plaintiff 'bears the burden of establishing the
district
court's
jurisdiction
over
the
defendant.'"
Quick
Technologies, Inc. v. Sage Group PLC, 313 F.3d 338, 343 (5th Cir.
2002), cert. denied,
Development LLC,
124 S. Ct.
190 F.3d 333,
66
335
(2003)
(quoting Mink v. AAAA
(5th Cir. 1999)).
"When the
district court rules on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction 'without an evidentiary hearing,
the plaintiff may
bear his burden by presenting a prima facie case that personal
jurisdiction is proper.'"
Id. at 343-344 (quoting Wilson v. Belin,
20 F.3d 644, 648 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 322 (1994)).
"In making its determination, the district court may consider the
contents of the record before the court at the time of the motion,
including
'affidavits,
testimony,
or
discovery. '"
any
Id.
interrogatories,
combination
at
344
of
the
depositions,
recognized
(quoting Thompson v.
7
methods
oral
of
Chrysler Motors
( • • • continued)
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Original and
First Amended Complaints ("Defendants' Reply"), Docket Entry
No. 26; Plaintiff's Sur-Reply in Opposition to Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss ("Plaintiff's Sur-Reply"), Docket Entry No. 29.
-4-
Corp., 755 F.2d 1162, 1165 (5th Cir. 1985)).
The court must accept
as true the uncontroverted allegations in the plaintiff's Complaint
and must resolve in favor of the plaintiff any factual conflicts.
Guidry v. United States Tobacco Co., Inc., 188 F.3d 619, 625 (5th
Cir.
1999)
However,
the
court
is
not
obligated
conclusory allegations, even if uncontroverted.
credit
Panda Brandywine
Corp. v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 253 F.3d 865, 869
2001).
to
(5th Cir.
"Absent any dispute as to the relevant facts, the issue of
whether personal jurisdiction may be exercised over a nonresident
by th [e]
defendant is a question of law to be determined .
Court."
Ruston Gas Turbines, Inc. v. Donaldson Co. , Inc. , 9 F. 3d
415, 418 (5th Cir. 1993).
B.
Applicable Law
A federal district court may exercise personal jurisdiction
over a nonresident defendant if "(1)
statute confers personal
(2)
the forum state's long-arm
jurisdiction over that defendant;
and
the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
587 F.3d 753,
(2010).
759
Since
(5th Cir.
the
Texas
2009),
long-arm
constitutional due process allows,
second step of the inquiry.
cert.
McFadin v. Gerber,
denied,
statute
131 S.
extends
as
Ct.
68
far
as
the court considers only the
Id.
Exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant
comports with federal due process guarantees when the nonresident
-5-
defendant has established minimum contacts with the forum state,
and the exercise of
jurisdiction "does not offend
notions of fair play and substantial justice.'"
'traditional
International Shoe
Co. v. State of Washington, Office of Unemployment Compensation and
Placement, 66 S. Ct. 154, 158 (1945)
s.
Ct . 3 3 9
34 3
I
( 19 4 0) ) .
(quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 61
Once a plaintiff satisfies these two
requirements, a presumption arises that jurisdiction is reasonable,
and the burden of proof and persuasion shifts to the defendant to
present
"a
compelling
case
that
the
presence
of
some
Burger
considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable."
King Corp.
v.
Rudzewicz,
105 S.
Ct.
2174,
2185
other
"The
(1985)
'minimum contacts' inquiry is fact intensive and no one element is
decisive; rather the touchstone is whether the defendant's conduct
shows that it
McFadin,
587
'reasonably anticipates being haled into court.'"
F.3d at
"There
759.
are
two
types
of
'minimum
those that give rise to specific personal jurisdiction
contacts'
and those that give rise to general personal jurisdiction."
Lewis
v. Fresne, 252 F.3d 352, 358 (5th Cir. 2001).
1.
General Jurisdiction
A court may exercise general jurisdiction over non-resident
defendants
"when
their
affiliations
with
the
State
are
so
'continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home
in the forum State."
Brown,
131
S.
Ct.
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations,
2846,
2851
(2011)
-6-
"Establishing
S.A. v.
general
jurisdiction
is
'difficult'
and
between a defendant and a forum. '"
Private Limited,
882
F.3d 96,
requires
'extensive
Sangha v. Navig8 ShipManagement
101-02
(5th Cir.
2018)
Johnston v. Multidata Systems International Corp.,
609 (5th Cir. 2008).
defendant
is
'at
contacts
(quoting
523 F.3d 602,
"The 'paradigm' forums in which a corporate
are
home,' .
the
corporation's
incorporation and its principal place of business."
Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549, 1558 (2017)
place
of
BNSF Railway
(citing Daimler AG v.
Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 760 (2014), and Goodyear, 131 S. Ct. 2846).
"The exercise of general
forums;
in
an
jurisdiction is not
'exceptional
case,'
a
limited to these
corporate
defendant's
operations in another forum 'may be so substantial and of such a
nature as to render the corporation at home in that State.'"
(quoting Daimler,
134 S.
exceptional
is
Services,
Vague
case
Ltd.
v.
allegations
duration,
at 761 n.19).
incredibly
Ritter,
768,
"that give
But asserting that
Monkton
difficult.
F.3d 429,
no
432
Insurance
(5th Cir.
indication as
to
the
2014).
extent,
or frequency of contacts are insufficient to support
general jurisdiction."
2.
Ct.
Id.
Johnston, 523 F.3d at 610.
Specific Jurisdiction
A court may exercise specific jurisdiction when the alleged
injuries arise from or are directly related to the nonresident
defendant's
contacts
with
the
forum
state.
Gundle
Lining
Construction Corp. v. Adams County Asphalt, Inc., 85 F.3d 201, 205
-7-
(5th Cir. 1996)
(citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A.
v. Hall, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 1872 n.8 (1984)); and Quick Technologies,
313
F. 3d at
344.
To
determine
whether
specific
jurisdiction
exists, a court must "examine the relationship among the defendant,
the forum, and the litigation to determine whether maintaining the
suit offends
justice."
traditional
notions
of
fair play and
Gundle Lining, 85 F.3d at 205.
substantial
Even a single contact
can support specific jurisdiction if the defendant "'purposefully
avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the
forum State,
laws.'"
thus invoking the benefits and protections of its
Burger King,
'purposeful availment'
105 S.
Ct.
at 2183.
must be such that
"The non-resident's
the defendant
'should
reasonably anticipate being haled into court' in the forum state."
Ruston Gas,
9 F.3d at 419
(citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v.
Woodson, 100 S. Ct. 559, 567 (1980)).
There
are
three
parts
to a
purposeful
availment
inquiry.
First, only the defendant's contacts with the forum are relevant,
not the unilateral activity of the plaintiff or a third party.
Sangha, 882 F.3d at 103 (citing Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115,
1122 (2014)
("We have consistently rejected attempts to satisfy the
defendant-focused
'minimum
contacts'
contacts between the plaintiff
State.") ) .
Second,
inquiry
by
demonstrating
(or third parties)
and the forum
the contacts relied upon must be purposeful
rather than random, fortuitous, or attenuated.
134
S.
Ct.
at
1123) .
Finally,
-8-
the
Id. (citing Walden,
defendant
must
seek
some
benefit,
advantage,
jurisdiction.
purposefully
or
profit
by
availing
itself
Burger King, 105 S. Ct. at 2183.
avoid
a
particular
forum
by
of
the
A defendant may
structuring
its
transactions in such a way as to neither profit from the forum's
laws nor subject itself to jurisdiction there.
Expeditions v.
Drugg,
221 S.W.3d 569,
Burger King, 105 S. Ct. at 2181-85).
is claim specific,
arise
out
of
"[a]
different
establish specific
575
(Tex.
Moki Mac River
2007)
(citing
Since specific jurisdiction
plaintiff bringing multiple claims that
forum
contacts
jurisdiction for
of
the
each claim."
defendant
must
Seiferth v.
Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266, 274 (5th Cir. 2006).
C.
Analysis
1.
General Jurisdiction
Defendants argue that the court lacks general jurisdiction
over them because Defendants are incorporated in Louisiana with
their principal places of business in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and
they do not have continuous and systematic contacts in Texas that
render them "at home" in Texas. 8
Plaintiff responds that because
Defendants operate four permanent facilities in Texas where they
conduct business and employ multiple people, they are "at home" in
Texas. 9
8
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Original and First Amended
Complaints, Docket Entry No. 21, p. 3.
9
Plaintiff's Response, Docket Entry No. 23, p. 10.
-9-
Because Defendants' place of incorporation and principal place
of business are in Louisiana, to exercise general jurisdiction the
facts must establish an "exceptional case."
See BNSF, 137 S. Ct.
at 1558i Patterson v. Aker Solutions Incorporated,
234
(5th Cir. 2016).
The Supreme Court has held that Perkins v.
Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.
case.
826 F.3d 231,
See 72 S. Ct. 413 (1952)
i
constituted such an exceptional
Patterson, 826 F.3d at
235 ("The
Supreme Court has found a sufficient basis for the exercise of
general
jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant in only one
modern case-Perkins.").
The Fifth Circuit uses Perkins as the
"benchmark of the 'exceptional case.'"
In
Perkins
because
the
defendant
Patterson, 826 F. 3d at 235.
company's
operations
in
the
Philippines were halted during war, the company's owner was forced
to temporarily relocate to Ohio.
72 S. Ct. at 419.
Once in Ohio
the owner maintained an office, kept office files of the company,
conducted business on behalf of the company,
distributed salary
checks, used two active Ohio bank accounts for company funds, used
an Ohio bank to transfer company stock, held directors' meetings,
and supervised the rehabilitation of the Philippine properties.
Id.
The Court held that the owner thus
"carried on in Ohio a
continuous and systematic supervision of the necessarily limited
wartime activities of the company [and]
[h]e there discharged his
duties as president and general manager
S.
Ct.
at
419 .
"Because Ohio
then became
-10-
II
the
Perkins,
center of
72
the
corporation's wartime activities,
suit was proper there."
BNSF,
137 S. Ct. at 1558 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
The Supreme Court's recent decision in BNSF is relevant to the
court's analysis.
In BNSF the plaintiffs sued a railway company,
BNSF, in Montana state court for injuries sustained while working
for the company.
BNSF, 137 S. Ct. at 1553.
The injuries did not
occur in Montana, nor did the injuries relate to any work performed
in
Montana.
BNSF
was
a
Delaware
principal place of business in Texas.
Id.
corporation
with
its
BNSF operated railroad
lines in 28 states, of which 2,061 miles of railroad track were in
Montana.
Id.
It employed 2,100 workers and maintained one of its
24 automotive facilities in Montana.
Id.
BNSF moved to dismiss
the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction arguing that it was not
"at home"
in Montana.
Id.
The Court held that operating over
2,000 miles of railroad track, employing more than 2,000 employees,
and other in-state business in Montana "does not suffice to permit
the assertion of general jurisdiction over claims .
unrelated to any activity occurring in Montana."
. that are
Id. at 1559.
The
Court explained that "'the general jurisdiction inquiry does not
focus
solely
on
the
magnitude
of
the
defendant's
in-state
contacts'" but rather "'calls for an appraisal of the corporation's
activities in their entirety.'"
Id.
(quoting Daimler, 134 S. Ct.
at 762, n.20).
The court concludes that this is not the exceptional case that
allows the court to exercise general jurisdiction over Defendants
-11-
in a
forum
principal
that
place
is
of
not
Defendants'
business.
place of
Unlike
the
incorporation or
company
in
Perkins,
Defendants did not make Texas the center of their operations or
temporarily relocate to Texas.
At all relevant times Defendants
maintained their place of incorporation and principal place of
business
in
Louisiana. 10
Like
the
railroad
company
in
BNSF,
Defendants own facilities, employ workers, and continuously operate
in the forum, yet are incorporated and have their principal places
of business in another state.
Because BNSF's business operations
in Montana failed to establish general jurisdiction, Plaintiff's
allegations likewise fail to establish general jurisdiction over
Defendants.
in
Texas,
See id. at 1559.
" [a]
corporation
Although Defendants have a presence
that
operates
scarcely be deemed at home in all of them."
at 762 n.20.
in
many
places
can
Daimler, 134 S. Ct.
The court concludes that Defendants' operations in
Texas are not so substantial and of such nature as to render the
corporations at home in Texas.
2.
Id. at 761, n.19.
Specific Jurisdiction
The court next must determine whether it may exercise specific
jurisdiction over Defendants.
"In contrast to general, all-purpose
jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of
issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that
1
9,
°First Amended Complaint, Docket Entry No. 20, p. 2-4
12.
-12-
~~
5,
establishes jurisdiction."
and quotations omitted) .
Goodyear, 131 S. Ct. at 2851 (citations
Defendants argue that the court does not
have specific jurisdiction over them because "they did not engage
in suit-related conduct that created a substantial connection with
Texas. " 11
Defendants argue
exclusively
to
conduct
that Plaintiff's allegations relate
that
occurred
in
Iowa
or
Louisiana. 12
Defendants do not dispute that they have minimum contacts with
Texas
to
inquiry.
satisfy
the
first
See Helicopteros,
step
472
in
the
specific
F.3d at 271
("(1)
jurisdiction
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
activities there .
itself
• II) •
of
the
privileges
of
conducting
Defendants dispute the second step of
the analysis-- "whether the plaintiff's cause of action arises out
of or results from the defendant's forum-related contacts [.] " 13
Id.
(citations and quotations omitted) .
Plaintiff responds that Defendants' activities within Texas
sufficiently relate to Plaintiff's causes of action to establish
11
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint, Exhibit 1
to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Original and First Amended
Complaints, Docket Entry No. 21-1, p. 7.
13
See Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Original and First Amended
Complaints, Docket Entry No. 21, pp. 3-7; Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Original Complaint, Exhibit 1 to Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Original and First Amended Complaints, Docket Entry
No. 21-1, pp. 5-7.
-13-
specific
jurisdiction. 14
Plaintiff
argues
harassment predominantly occurred in Iowa,
that
although
"Defendants'
the
act of
assigning him to Iowa occurred at Defendants' Corpus Christi, Texas
facility.
1115
Plaintiff argues that the wrongdoing "would not have
occurred but for Defendants'
actions in hiring Texas residents,
employing Plaintiff in Texas, and transferring him from Texas.
1116
Citing Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp., 5 F.3d 877 (5th Cir. 1993),
Plaintiff argues that conducting hiring and recruitment activities
in the forum is sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction. 17
Plaintiff also argues that although the most egregious acts of
discrimination occurred in Iowa,
discriminated
against
"throughout
Plaintiff alleged that he was
his
employment.
1118
In
reply,
Defendants argue that "simply hiring an individual who happened to
reside in a particular state was not a factor for the decision in
Coats as Plaintiff would have the Court believe.
1119
In Coats the plaintiff worked for a vessel-repair corporation,
MIS, that was organized under the laws of the United Arab Emirates
and had branch offices
in Dubai
and Abu Dhabi.
Id.
14
Id. at 15.
17
Id.
880.
Plaintiff's Response, Docket Entry No. 23, p. 12.
16
at
at 13-14;
Plaintiff's Surreply,
Docket Entry No.
29,
p. 16.
18
Id. at 15 n.19 (citing First Amended Complaint, Docket Entry
No. 20, p. 2 ~ 2).
19
Defendants' Reply, Docket Entry No. 26, p. 19.
-14-
Plaintiff was injured on a drilling rig located in the United Arab
Emirates while performing pressure testing.
Id.
federal court in Mississippi.
On appeal the Fifth
Circuit
addressed
whether
jurisdiction over MIS
Id. at 881.
the
and held
Mississippi
that
the
He sued MIS in
court
had
personal
of
specific
exercise
jurisdiction over MIS satisfied the Constitutional requirements.
Id.
at
884.
The
court
concluded
that
MIS
could
reasonably
anticipate being haled into court in Mississippi because of its
"recruitment activities in Mississippi that led to
[plaintiff's]
hiring, such as holding a meeting in the state and buying ads in
papers that circulated in the state."
plaintiff's
injury,
MIS
flew
the plaintiff
treatment and paid his medical bills.
"[f] lying an employee
Id.
to Mississippi
obligation there is not a 'random,'
Id.
Moreover,
after the
to Mississippi
for
The court held that
and assuming a
financial
'fortuitous,' or 'attenuated'
act that is an improper basis for jurisdiction."
Id.
It reasoned
that "[blacking out of that commitment, an act that ultimately cost
MIS over $20,000 in the judgment below, was also a choice by MIS
that could lead it to foresee appearing in a Mississippi court."
Id.
The court next analyzed whether assertion of jurisdiction
However,
would be fair and reasonable.
specifically analyze whether or not
the court did not
the plaintiff's
causes
of
action arose out of or related to MIS's contacts with the forum.
20
20
In analyzing whether the Mississippi long-arm statute confers
personal jurisdiction, the court held that the plaintiff's claims
(continued ... )
-15-
The factual allegations supporting Plaintiff's claims under
Title VII, Section 1981, and the Texas Employment Discrimination
Act for discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation
all focus on Plaintiff's employment in Iowa.
Defendants' Corpus Christi, Texas,
Plaintiff worked in
location until July of 2015, 21
when Plaintiff's Texas supervisor told Plaintiff that he would be
transferred to Defendants' Iowa facility.
"[f]ollowing
the
transfer,
22
Plaintiff alleges that
Plaintiff
was
subjected
discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation .
to
II
and that " [t] hroughout Plaintiff's employment at the Iowa location,
20
( • • • continued)
arise from facts sufficiently incident
Mississippi.
Id. at 883.
It reasoned:
to MIS' s
activities
in
MIS held a meeting in Mississippi and recruited Coats to
come work for them.
This contact with Mississippi
resulted in Coats' employment and Coats was injured on
the job.
Moreover, Coats claims damages, in part, as
compensation for his medical expenses while in a
Mississippi hospital, where MIS flew him for treatment.
Finally, MIS terminated its payment of Coats' medical
expenses while Coats was hospitalized in Mississippi.
Id. However, when analyzing the due process requirements to confer
specific jurisdiction, the court remained silent about this prong
of specific jurisdiction.
The plaintiff sued MIS for negligence,
wrongful termination of maintenance and cure,
and wrongful
termination of benefits under ERISA.
Id. at 881.
The causes of
action for wrongful termination of maintenance and cure and
benefits under ERISA relate to medical treatment and financial
support after an injury, which MIS provided in Mississippi.
See
id. at 884. Therefore, although the Fifth Circuit did not explain
this prong, or distinguish between the claims, at least those two
claims seem to arise out of the defendant's contacts with
Mississippi.
21
First Amended Complaint, Docket Entry No. 20, p. 5
22
Id. at 5
~~
22-23.
-16-
~
22.
his supervisor and fellow co-workers made frequent statements to
the Plaintiff that he was affiliated with Islamic terrorism. " 23
Plaintiff details the discriminatory treatment that occurred in
Iowa and states that he filed a complaint to human resources in
Iowa and in Louisiana. 24
Plaintiff alleges that after he filed
these complaints, he was assigned to lower-level job duties. 25
Plaintiff argues that the court has specific jurisdiction over
Defendants because Plaintiff would not have faced discrimination in
Iowa but for Defendants' hiring him in Texas and transferring him
from Texas to Iowa.
26
But Plaintiff alleges no liability for the
hire or the transfer, and that conduct is unrelated to Plaintiff's
causes of action for discrimination, hostile work environment, and
retaliation.
Unlike these purported bases
for personal
juris-
diction in this case, the basis for personal jurisdiction in Coats
was not merely the defendant's hiring activity in the forum,
~~
23
Id. at 6
24
Id. at 6-8
25
Id. at 9
~
but
27-28 (emphasis added).
~~
29-43.
46.
26
Plaintiff argues that the required causal nexus to establish
that the claims "arise from" or "relate to" Defendants' activities
in the forum is "but for" or "but for plus" causation. See
Plaintiff's Response, Docket Entry No. 23, p. 13.
The Fifth
Circuit has not definitively ruled on which approach applies to
this analysis. However, the outcome of this case would not change
whether the "but for" test applies or whether the more stringent
"but-for-plus" approach applies. As the court has explained above,
the connection between Defendants' actions in Texas and Plaintiff's
discrimination claims is too attenuated to establish that
Plaintiff's claims arise from or relate to the Defendants' Texas
activities.
-17-
also the defendant's involvement in the plaintiff's hospitalization
and payment of the plaintiff's medical bills in the forum.
Coats, 5 F.3d at 884.
Here,
See
the hostile comments by Plaintiff's
Iowa supervisor and Iowa co-workers, and the reassignment of job
duties after Plaintiff submitted complaints in Iowa and Louisiana
are the bases for Plaintiff's claims.
See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 137 S. Ct.
1773,
1780
(2017)
("[S]pecific
jurisdiction
is
confined
to
adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with, the very
controversy that establishes jurisdiction.").
Because all of the
alleged discriminatory and retaliatory conduct occurred in Iowa (or
arguably Louisiana) Plaintiff's causes of action do not arise out
of or result from Defendants' contacts with Texas.
See Maner v.
Health, Civil Action No. 3:15-191, 2016 WL 5394266 at *6 (S.D. Tex.
Sept. 27,
2016)
(final judgment vacated to order transfer rather
than dismissal)
(holding that the plaintiff's discrimination and
breach of contract claims did not arise out of the defendant's
contacts with Texas because none of the discriminatory actions or
investigations took place in Texas)
Plaintiff's argument that he alleged in his
Complaint
that
he
was
discriminated
against
First Amended
"throughout
employment" and not merely in Iowa also lacks merit. 27
failed
27
to
allege
in either his
Original
or his
Plaintiff
First Amended
Plaintiff's Response, Docket Entry No. 23, p. 15 n.19.
-18-
his
Complaint a specific act of employment discrimination, hostile work
environment, or retaliation that took place in Texas.
The single
conclusory statement that Plaintiff cites does not mention Texas, 28
and thus is not enough to establish specific jurisdiction.
In
every other instance that Plaintiff alleges he was discriminated
against "throughout his employment" Plaintiff refers either to Iowa
or to Plaintiff's Iowa supervisor. 29
The court therefore concludes
that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to allow the
court to exercise specific jurisdiction over Defendants.
Because
the court concludes that it may not exercise personal jurisdiction
over
Defendants,
it
need
not
decide
whether
it
is
fair
and
reasonable to require the Defendants to litigate in Texas.
III.
Conclusions and Order
For the reasons explained above,
Plaintiff has
failed
to meet his
the court concludes that
burden of
establishing facts
capable of supporting the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction
over Defendants.
Although the court may transfer the case to a
proper venue under 28 U.S.C.
such
relief
appropriate.
or
explained
The
court
§
1406(a), neither party has requested
which
will
district
therefore
of
Iowa
dismiss
would
this
be
action.
First Amended Complaint, Docket Entry No. 20, p. 2 ~ 2
("Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was
subjected to racially hostile comments
. ") .
28
29
Id. at 6-7
~~
28, 33, 36.
-19-
Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Original and
First Amended Complaints for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and
Improper Venue
(Docket Entry No. 21)
is GRANTED, and this action
will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 17th day of July, 2018.
UNITED
-20-
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?