# Sternberg v. Langston

> District Court, E.D. Louisiana · October 23, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10184929

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** October 23, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10184929

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CYNTHIA LANGSTON
CIVIL ACTION
STERNBERG

VERSUS NO: 18-7349

KENNETH LANGSTON, ET AL. SECTION: “J”(3)

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court are Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction filed
by Defendants Christopher Randall Purdum and Buffington Law Firm, LLC (the
“Firm”) (Rec. Doc. 51), Regnal Blackledge (Rec. Doc. 55), Jennifer Langston (Rec.
Doc. 58), Kenneth Langston (Rec. Doc. 73), and Katherine Langston (Rec. Doc.
82). Having considered the motions and memoranda, the record, and the applicable
law, the Court finds that the motions should be GRANTED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This litigation arises from damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff Cynthia
Langston Sternberg in connection with the succession of Lydia Marrero Langston
(“the Estate”), her mother. Named as Defendants are: Kenneth Langston, current
administrator of the Estate and Plaintiff’s brother; Jennifer Langston, Plaintiff’s
sister-in-law; James Wright Langston Jr.,1 Plaintiff’s brother; Katherine Langston,
Plaintiff’s sister; Regnal Blackledge, counsel for the Langstons in proceedings related
to the Estate; Christopher Randall Purdum, prior administrator of the Estate; and

1 James W. Langston Jr. was dismissed as a party to these proceedings on September 24, 2019, for
Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve him. (Rec. Doc. 78).
the Firm, Purdum’s employer. Plaintiff brings claims for breach of contract, fraud,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and gross negligence against
all Defendants, as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Purdum and

Kenneth as administrators of the Estate, and intentional interference with a contract
against Purdum. Essentially, Plaintiff claims that Defendants acted in concert to
deprive her of her rights to the Estate.
Plaintiff was initially appointed administrator of the Estate. After the
Langston heirs discovered that the documents of the deceased were forged by
Plaintiff, they hired Blackledge to represent them in proceedings to have the will set
aside. The Mississippi court set aside the will and named Purdum as administrator.

Litigation continued for approximately one year to account for the assets of the Estate
in light of Plaintiff’s fraud.
During this same period, Plaintiff also initiated litigation in Texas against her
siblings and sister-in-law. The Texas state court declared the trust fraudulently
created by Plaintiff to be invalid and ordered Plaintiff to reimburse the Estate for the
amounts she had taken.2

Ultimately, the parties reached a settlement agreement in the Mississippi
litigation as to the distribution of the Estate. However, Plaintiff tried to set aside the
terms of the settlement, which was rejected by the Mississippi court.
Plaintiff filed suit against Purdum and the Firm in the Southern District of
Mississippi on January 4, 2017; however, once Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma

2 (Order on Final Summary Judgment, Sternberg v. Lydia Marrero Langston Trust, No. 2013-677-67 (Tex. Dist. Jan.
9, 2015), Rec. Doc. 73-5, at 3-4).
pauperis was denied, she did not continue to prosecute that suit.3 Plaintiff then filed
the instant suit in this Court.
Plaintiff resides in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. Kenneth and Jennifer

Langston are residents of Illinois. Katherine Langston resides in Florida. Purdum
and Blackledge are both residents of Mississippi. The Firm was a limited liability
company formed on April 4, 2016, and dissolved on December 6, 2017, with its place
of incorporation and principal place of business in Mississippi.
PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS
I. DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Defendants move to dismiss all claims against them for lack of personal

jurisdiction. They assert the Court lacks general jurisdiction over them because no
Defendant is incorporated, has a principle place of business, nor is domiciled in
Louisiana. Further, they contend that the Court lacks specific jurisdiction because
Defendants do not have sufficient minimum contacts with Louisiana. In addition to
claiming that no contacts exist in Louisiana, Defendants maintain that the alleged
harm to Plaintiff arose out of events that occurred in Mississippi, not Louisiana.

Defendants also assert that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim for which relief
can be granted and, in the alternative, request the Court to transfer this case to the
Southern District of Mississippi, where they assert venue would be proper.
II. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION

3 Order, Sternberg v. Purdum, No. 17-6 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 20, 2017) (dismissing case without prejudice).
Plaintiff argues that the Court has jurisdiction and is the proper venue over
her claims relating to the Estate. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that personal
jurisdiction and venue are proper because the effects of Defendants’ actions were felt

and continue to be felt in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. Plaintiff contends that the
injury arises out of the Defendants contacts, as Jennifer and Blackledge sent emails
and made telephone calls to Louisiana, Kenneth and Katherine own a share of stock
in a Louisiana company, Purdum did business with a corporation in Louisiana, sent
emails to Plaintiff in Louisiana, and made telephone calls to residents of Louisiana,
and the Firm by association with Purdum has such contacts to Louisiana.
Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have waived their defense of

lack of personal jurisdiction because they did not assert it in their prior motions to
dismiss for untimely service pursuant to Rule 4(m).
III. DEFENDANTS’ REPLY
Defendants Jennifer Langston, Purdum, and the Firm argue that they did not
waive their right to offer Rule 12(b) motions by filing Rule 4(m) motions, as Plaintiff
did not serve them in accordance with Rule 4(m). They allege that their response

addressing such technical failures to serve in accordance with Rule 4(m) did not waive
their right to assert that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction.
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits dismissal of a suit
for lack of personal jurisdiction. “Where a defendant challenges personal jurisdiction,
the party seeking to invoke the power of the court bears the burden of proving that
jurisdiction exists.” Luv N’Care, Ltd. v. Insta-Mix, Inc., 483 F.3d 465, 469 (5th Cir.
2006). However, the plaintiff is only required to establish jurisdiction through a
prima facie showing. Id. The court must accept the plaintiff’s uncontroverted

allegations and resolve all conflicts between the facts contained in the parties’
affidavits and other documentation in favor of jurisdiction. Id.
To satisfy personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, a federal court
sitting in diversity must satisfy two requirements. Pervasive Software Inc. v. Lexware
GmbH & Co. KG, 688 F.3d 214, 220 (5th Cir. 2012). “First, the forum state’s long-arm
statute must confer personal jurisdiction. Second, the exercise of jurisdiction must
not exceed the boundaries of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Id. The limits of the Louisiana long-arm statute are coextensive with constitutional
due process limits. Jackson v. Tanfoglio Giuseppe, SRL, 615 F.3d 579, 584 (5th Cir.
2010). Accordingly, the inquiry here is whether jurisdiction comports with federal
constitutional guarantees. See id.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no
federal court may assume personal jurisdiction of a non-resident defendant unless

the defendant has certain “minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the
maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.’” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (citation
omitted). The Supreme Court has recognized two types of personal jurisdiction:
specific and general. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1173,
1779-80 (2017).
Specific jurisdiction is limited to “adjudication of issues deriving from, or
connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction.” Goodyear Dunlop
Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011) (internal quotation marks

and citation omitted). To establish specific jurisdiction, a plaintiff must show three
elements. Pervasive Software, 688 F.3d at 221. First, the plaintiff must demonstrate
that there are sufficient minimum contacts to connect the non-resident defendant to
the forum that is hearing the litigation. Id. Second, the plaintiff must prove that the
defendant purposefully established the contacts. Id. Third, the plaintiff must allege
a cause of action that either arises out of or is related to the defendant’s forum
contacts. Id. The defendant can then defeat the exercise of specific jurisdiction by

showing that it would be unreasonable. Id. at 221-22.
DISCUSSION
I. RULE 4(M) AND RULE 12(B) MOTIONS
Plaintiff contends that Defendants have waived their defense of lack of
personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) by moving to dismiss under Rule 4(m). The
Court disagrees.

Rule 4(m) provides:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed,
the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must
dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order
that service be made within a specified time.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (emphasis added). Thus, Rule 4(m) authorizes a motion by its
own terms.
Rule 12(g) provides that “a party that makes a motion under this rule must not
make another motion under this rule raising a defense or objection that was available
to the party but omitted from its earlier motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2) (emphasis

added). Further, Rule 12(h) provides that a party may also waive “any defense listed
in Rule 12(b)(2)-(5) by . . . failing to either: (i) make it by motion under this rule; or
(ii) include it in a responsive pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1)(B). Thus, the plain
language of Rule 12 provides that the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction is waived
where a party files a Rule 12 motion or responsive pleading but fails to assert it, or
where a party fails to file a Rule 12 motion at all. Mississippi ex rel Hood v. Entergy
Miss., Inc., No. 3:08-CV-780, 2017 WL 2973998, at *1 (S.D. Miss. July 11, 2017); cf.

Alliantgroup, L.P. v. Feingold, No. H-09-0479, 2009 WL 1109093, at *6 (S.D. Tex.
Apr. 24, 2009) (“[Defendant’s] motion for extension of time to answer is not a
responsive pleading and his failure to object to jurisdiction in that motion did not
waive his objection to a lack of personal jurisdiction.”).
Courts cannot “ignor[e] what the Rule provides in plain language. We accept
the Rule as meaning what it says.” Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 30 (1986).

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants have not waived their defense of lack of
personal jurisdiction.
II. SPECIFIC JURISDICTION
The Court also finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendants have
sufficient minimum contacts to support specific jurisdiction. Simply because a
plaintiff suffers injury in a forum is not enough to vest the court with specific
jurisdiction. Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 290 (2014) (“[M]ere injury to a forum
resident is not a sufficient connection to the forum”).
Katherine Langston’s sole contact with Louisiana is her ownership of shares

in the Marrero Land & Improvement Association, Ltd., a Louisiana corporation.
However, as Plaintiff’s claims against Katherine do not arise from her ownership of
this stock, but rather from her involvement in the Estate, the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over Katherine Langston.
Plaintiff asserts that the Court has jurisdiction over Jennifer Langston,
Blackledge, and Purdum because of phone calls and emails they made to people
within Louisiana concerning her law license. “A single act by a defendant can be

enough to confer personal jurisdiction if that act gives rise to the claim being
asserted.” Lewis v. Fresne, 252 F.3d 352, 358-59 (5th Cir. 2001). However, Plaintiff’s
claims arise from “her rights to and in the Succession of Lydia Marrero Langston.”4
There is not a single mention of Plaintiff’s law license in her complaint and, given
Plaintiff’s delay in prosecuting this case thus far, the Court declines to exercise its
discretion to grant her leave to amend her complaint to add an unrelated claim. As

Plaintiff has asserted no other basis for personal jurisdiction over Jennifer Langston
or Blackledge, her claims against them will be dismissed.
Plaintiff’s claims against Kenneth Langston and Purdum in their capacity as
administrators of the Estate, the administration of which occurred in Mississippi,
lack any connection whatsoever to Louisiana and will therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff

4 (Rec. Doc. 1, at 3).
likewise fails to assert any connection between her intentional interference with a
contract claim against Purdum and Louisiana, so this claim will also be dismissed.
Finally, as there is no additional basis for jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims
against the Firm other than those asserted against Purdum, Plaintiffs claims against
the Firm will be dismissed.
In sum, Plaintiff's alleged injuries arise out of the administration of the Estate,
which occurred in Mississippi, and not from the Defendants’ minimal contacts with
Louisiana. Although the harm occurred to a resident within the Court’s jurisdiction,
this is insufficient to a finding of specific jurisdiction. See Walden, 571 U.S. at 290.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction (Rec. Docs. 51, 55, 58, 73, 82) are GRANTED, and Plaintiffs
complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 23rd day of October, 2019.

□

CARL J. BAR
UNITED ST DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10184929. Public record. Not legal advice.