Opinion
CIVIL ACTION 19-436-SDD-SDJ
09-24-2020
CHEM CARRIERS, L.L.C. v. L. ENERGY INTERNATIONAL, LLC
RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant, L. Energy International, LLC ("Defendant"). Chem Carriers, L.L.C. ("Plaintiff") has filed an Opposition to this motion. For the reasons which follow, the Court finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant, and the Rule 12(b)(2) motion will be granted.
Rec. Doc. No. 12.
Rec. Doc. No. 20.
Rec. Doc. No. 12.
I. BACKGROUND
The facts alleged by the parties are as follows. Defendant is a "fuel wholesaler and trader, and its business is buying and selling fuel in and near the Texas Gulf Coast for sale in Texas and Mexico." Plaintiff is a company specializing in transportation services. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract on December 18, 2018, wherein the parties agreed that Plaintiff would transport Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel from Corpus Christi, Texas to Harlingen/Brownsville, Texas. Both parties argue that the other party did not perform as agreed under the contract: Plaintiff contends that Defendant did not pay for services rendered between March 2, 2019 and May 21, 2019, whereas Defendant contends that Plaintiff's performance was deficient, specifically regarding the frequency and quality of transportation services.
Rec. Doc. 12-1 p. 5-6.
See Rec. Doc. 20-1 p. 1.
Rec. Doc. 12-1 p. 5; Rec. Doc. 20-1 p. 1.
Rec. Doc. 20-1 p. 1.
Rec. Doc. 12-1 p. 7.
Plaintiff filed a breach of contract claim against Defendant on July 3, 2019. Defendant filed the present Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) on October 30, 2019; afterward, Defendant filed an Answer and asserted a counterclaim against Plaintiff on July 27, 2020. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on May 6, 2020. The Court now turns to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
Rec. Doc. 1.
Rec. Doc. 24.
Rec. Doc. 32.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Rule 12(b)(2)
When a nonresident defendant presents a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the court's jurisdiction over the nonresident. When a district court rules on a motion to dismiss without an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only present a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. At this stage, uncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be taken as true, and conflicts between the parties' affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor. To aid resolution of the jurisdictional issue, a court "may receive interrogatories, depositions or any combination of the recognized methods of discovery . . . But even if the court receives discovery materials, unless there is a full and fair hearing, it should not act as a fact finder and must construe all disputed facts in the plaintiff's favor and consider them along with the undisputed facts."
Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185, 1192 (5th Cir.1985); Brown v. Flowers Indus., Inc., 688 F.2d 328, 332 (5th Cir.1982), cert. den., 450 U.S. 1023, 103 S.Ct. 1275, 75 L.Ed.2d 496 (1983).
Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Myers & Assoc., Ltd., 41 F.3d 229, 230-31 (5th Cir.1995) (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-73 [1985], and Holt Oil & Gas Corp. v. Harvey, 801 F.2d 773 (5th Cir.1986), cert. den., 481 U.S. 1015 (1987).
D.J. Inv., Inc. v. Metzeler Motorcycle Tire Agent Gregg, Inc., 754 F.2d 542, 546 (5th Cir.1985).
Walk Haydel & Assoc., Inc. v. Coastal Power Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 235, 241 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding that a district court erred in requiring a plaintiff to establish more than a prima facie case even after a limited pretrial evidentiary hearing) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
B. Jurisdictional Discovery
In opposing Defendant's motion, Plaintiff does not argue a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. Rather, Plaintiff requests the opportunity for discovery to determine the extent of Defendant's contacts. "When a party seeks jurisdictional discovery, the Court has discretion as to the type and amount of discovery to permit." "Discovery on matters of personal jurisdiction . . . need not be permitted unless the motion to dismiss raises issues of fact." But a party seeking jurisdictional discovery cannot escape their burden of demonstrating a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction:
Sinclair v. StudioCanal, S.A., 709 F.Supp. 2d. 496, 510 (E.D. La. 2010) (citing Walk Haydel, 517 F.3d at 241).
Kelly v. Syria Shell Petroleum Development B.V., 213 F.3d 841, 855 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Wyatt v. Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276, 284 (5th Cir. 1982)).
[T]he movant must make a "preliminary showing of jurisdiction" which includes "factual allegations that show with reasonable particularity the possible existence of [personal jurisdiction]."Plaintiff's failure to provide a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction renders the Court unable to determine the appropriateness of limited jurisdictional discovery. While Defendant provides extensive argument that the Court lacks both specific and general personal jurisdiction, in addition to a lack of consent to jurisdiction, Plaintiff does not provide any argument. Specifically, Plaintiff's sole argument is a tenuous analysis of Defendant's decision to acquire a certificate of authority under LA. REV. STAT. 12:1342, which at best indicates the possibility that Defendant has perhaps transacted some business in Louisiana. Moreover, while Defendant submits the Affidavit of Steve McNear, Defendant's sole member, and the Charter Agreement for the Court's consideration, Plaintiff only re-submits the Charter Agreement, and there is no other information in the record from which the Court can deduce a conclusion as to whether there is personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Plaintiff cannot simply request jurisdictional discovery without first providing the Court with a "preliminary showing of jurisdiction," which Plaintiff has failed to do. Consequently, Plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery is DENIED.
Head v. Las Vegas Sands, LLC, 298 F.Supp. 3d 963, 967 (S.D. Tex. 2018) (quoting Fiduciary Network, LLC v. Buehler, 2015 WL 2165953 at *4 (N.D. Tex. 2015)). See also Evergreen Media Holdings, LLC v. Safran Co., 68 F.Supp. 3d 664, 685 (S.D. Tex. 2014).
See generally Rec. Doc. 12-1.
Rec. Doc. 20-1 p. 2-3.
See Rec. Docs. 12-2, 12-3.
See Rec. Doc. 20-2.
C. Alternative Request to Transfer
Plaintiff requests in the alternative that the present case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Defendant does not argue that the Court ought to dismiss rather than transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas. Plaintiff argues that Defendant is a Limited Liability Company organized under the laws of Texas with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas, located within the Southern District of Texas. Defendant contends the same. Therefore, because the Southern District of Texas is a forum where the action might have been brought, Plaintiff's alternative request to transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas shall be GRANTED under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Rec. Doc. 20-1 p. 3.
See Rec. Doc. 12-1 p. 15.
Rec. Doc. 20-1 p. 3.
Rec. Doc. 12-1 p. 5.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court acknowledges that Defendant's Motion is meritorious; however, because the Court is granting Plaintiff's alternative request for relief in transferring the case, the Court will deny the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice as moot.
For the reasons set forth above, this case shall be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) is DENIED as moot.
Rec. Doc. No. 12.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana this 24th day of September, 2020.
/s/ _________
SHELLY D. DICK
CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA