Opinion

Montgomery, Jr. - Adams-II v. Anderson

Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Filed: Jun 9, 2025
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 36.3%

“The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State.”

How later courts described this case

“The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State.”
“For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile; for a corporation it is an equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at home.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CINDY ADAMS CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 24-2432

CONSUELLEO ANDERSON, ET AL. SECTION “R” (5)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court are four motions to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction from five different defendants.1 Plaintiff has not opposed any of

the motions. For the following reasons, the Court grants defendants’

motions.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of a series of disjointed events that occurred

throughout plaintiff’s life.2 Plaintiff Cindy Adams initially filed a complaint

in this Court pro se in October 2024,3 and acquired counsel in December

2024. Counsel filed a first amended complaint in January 2025, in which

plaintiff alleged causes of action against nineteen named defendants, as well

1 R. Docs. 53, 54, 77, & 78.

2 R. Doc. 11.

3 R. Doc. 1.

as Does 1 through 20 and six unknown insurance companies.4 The complaint

asserted claims for a range of disconnected conduct dating back to 2002.5

Four defendants named in the suit—Norfolk Public School District

(“NPS”), Chesapeake Police Department (“CPD”), Samantha Bates, and

Earnell Patterson—independently moved to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).6

The Court considers the motion below.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Personal jurisdiction “is an essential element of the jurisdiction of a

district court, without which it is powerless to proceed to an adjudication.”

Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) (internal citation

omitted). When a nonresident defendant moves the court to dismiss for lack

of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), the plaintiff bears the burden to

show that personal jurisdiction exists. Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185,

1192 (5th Cir. 1985). When the court rules on a motion to dismiss for lack of

personal jurisdiction without holding an evidentiary hearing, as in the

present case, the nonmoving party need only make a prima facie showing.

4 R. Doc. 11.

5 Id.

6 R. Docs. 53, 54, 77, & 78.

Godhra v. United States Tobacco Co., Inc., 188 F.3d 619, 625 (5th Cir. 1999).

The allegations of the complaint, except as controverted by opposing

affidavits, must be taken as true, and all conflicts in the facts must be

resolved in favor of plaintiffs. Thompson v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 755 F.2d

1162, 1165 (5th Cir. 1985).

A court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if

(1) the forum state’s long-arm statute confers personal jurisdiction over that

defendant, and (2) the forum state’s exercise of jurisdiction complies with

the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Latshaw v. Johnson,

167 F.3d 208, 211 (5th Cir. 1999). Because Louisiana’s long-arm statute, La.

Rev. Stat. § 13:3201, et seq., extends jurisdiction to the full limits of due

process, the Court’s focus is solely on whether the exercise of its jurisdiction

in this case satisfies federal due process requirements. Dickson Marine Inc.

v. Panalpina, Inc., 179 F.3d 331, 336 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing La. Rev. Stat.

§ 13:3201(B)).

The exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant

satisfies due process when (1) the defendant has purposefully availed itself

of the benefits and protections of the forum state by establishing “minimum

contacts” with that state, and (2) exercising personal jurisdiction over the

defendant does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial

justice.” Latshaw, 167 F.3d at 211 (citing Int'l Shoe Co. v. Wa., 326 U.S. 310,

316 (1945)).

There are two ways to establish minimum contacts: specific

jurisdiction and general jurisdiction. Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644, 647 (5th

Cir. 1994). General jurisdiction will attach, even if the act or transaction sued

upon is unrelated to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state, if the

defendant has engaged in “continuous and systematic” activities in the forum

state. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415

(1984); Wilson, 20 F.3d at 647. Contacts between a defendant and the forum

state must be “extensive” to satisfy the “continuous and systematic” test.

Submersible Sys., Inc. v. Perforadora Cent., S.A. de C.V., 249 F.3d 413, 419

(5th Cir. 2001); see Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131

S.Ct. 2846, 2853–54 (2011) (“For an individual, the paradigm forum for the

exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile; for a corporation

it is an equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at

home.”).

Specific jurisdiction exists when a nonresident defendant “has

purposefully directed its activities at the forum state and the litigation results

from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities.” Panda

Brandywine Corp. v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 253 F.3d 865, 867 (5th Cir.

2001); Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414 n.8. Minimum contacts may be

established by actions, or even just a single act, by the nonresident defendant

that “purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within

the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.”

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985).

“When the cause of action relates to the defendant’s contact with the

forum, the ‘minimum contacts’ requirement is satisfied, and ‘specific’

jurisdiction is proper, so long as that contact resulted from the defendant’s

purposeful conduct and not the unilateral activity of the plaintiff.” Bearry v.

Beech Aircraft Corp., 818 F.2d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Hanson v.

Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958) (“The unilateral activity of those who

claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the

requirement of contact with the forum State.”). This restriction on the

minimum contacts inquiry ensures that the defendant “purposefully availed”

itself of the benefits of the forum state such that it could “reasonably

anticipate being haled into court there.” Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB,

205 F.3d 208, 214 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474);