United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
A. FITZWATER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
action, defendant Camping World RV Sales, LLC (“Camping
World”) moves to dismiss for lack of in
personam jurisdiction. Plaintiffs Anthony Landreneau and
Leah Landreneau (the “Landreneaus”) have not
responded to the motion. For the reasons that follow, the
court grants Camping World's motion to dismiss for lack
of in personam jurisdiction and dismisses the
Landreneaus' action against Camping World without
prejudice by judgment filed today.
Landreneaus, residents of Louisiana, sued defendants Camping
World, Forest River, Inc., Motor Home Specialist, LP
(“Motor Home Specialist”), Alliant Credit Union,
and Daimler Trucks North America LLC for allegedly violating
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et
seq., breach of express warranties, breach of implied
warranties, and negligent repair. These claims arise from the
Landreneaus' purchase and subsequent repairs of a new
2015 Forest River Berkshire XL motor home from Motor Home
Specialist in Alvarado, Texas. After the Landreneaus
experienced issues with the motor home, Camping World
performed warranty repairs on the vehicle in 2017 at its
dealership located in Lafayette, Louisiana. All transactions
between the Landreneaus and Camping World occurred in
Landreneaus' second amended complaint, they allege a
negligent repair claim against Camping World and several
other defendants. On April 23, 2018 Camping World filed the
instant motion to dismiss. The Landreneaus' response to
the motion was due on May 14, 2018. See N.D. Tex.
Civ. R. 7.1(e). The Landreneaus have not responded to the
motion, and it is now ripe for decision.
a nonresident defendant presents a motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of
establishing the district court's jurisdiction over the
nonresident.” Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d
1185, 1192 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Thompson v.
Chrysler Motors Corp., 755 F.2d 1162, 1165 (5th Cir.
1985); D.J. Invs., Inc. v. Metzeler Motorcycle
Tire Agent Gregg, Inc., 754 F.2d 542, 545 (5th Cir.
1985)). The determination whether a federal district court
has in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident
defendant is bipartite. The court first decides whether the
long-arm statute of the state in which it sits confers
personal jurisdiction over the defendant. If it does, the
court then resolves whether the exercise of jurisdiction is
consistent with due process under the United States
Constitution. See Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC, 190 F.3d
333, 335 (5th Cir. 1999). Because the Texas long-arm statute
extends to the limits of due process, the court need only
consider whether exercising jurisdiction over Camping World
would be consistent with the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. See id.; Alpine View Co.
v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 214 (5th Cir. 2000).
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits
the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident
defendant when (1) that defendant has purposefully availed
[itself] of the benefits and protections of the forum state
by establishing “minimum contacts” with the forum
state; and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction over that
defendant does not offend “traditional notions of fair
play and substantial justice.” To comport with due
process, the defendant's conduct in connection with the
forum state must be such that [it] “should reasonably
anticipate being haled into court” in the forum state.
Latshaw v. Johnston, 167 F.3d 208, 211 (5th Cir.
1999) (footnotes omitted). To determine whether exercising
jurisdiction would satisfy traditional notions of fair play
and substantial justice, the court examines (1) the
defendant's burden, (2) the forum state's interests,
(3) the plaintiff's interest in convenient and effective
relief, (4) the judicial system's interest in efficient
resolution of controversies, and (5) the states' shared
interest in fundamental social policies. Ruston Gas
Turbines, Inc. v. Donaldson Co., 9 F.3d 415, 421 (5th
defendant's contacts with the forum may support either
specific or general jurisdiction over the defendant.
Mink, 190 F.3d at 336. “Specific jurisdiction
exists when the nonresident defendant's contacts with the
forum state arise from, or are directly related to, the cause
of action. General jurisdiction exists when a defendant's
contacts with the forum state are unrelated to the cause of
action but are ‘continuous and systematic.'”
Id. (citations omitted).
district court usually resolves the jurisdictional issue
without conducting a hearing.” Ham v. La Cienega
Music Co., 4 F.3d 413, 415 (5th Cir. 1993) (footnote
omitted). “When a court rules on a motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction without holding an
evidentiary hearing, it must accept as true the
uncontroverted allegations in the complaint and resolve in
favor of the plaintiff any factual conflicts posed by the
affidavits. Therefore, in a no-hearing situation, a plaintiff
satisfies his burden by presenting a prima facie case for
personal jurisdiction.” Latshaw, 167 F.3d at
211 (footnotes omitted).
Landreneaus' second amended complaint, they plead the
predicate for the court's exercise of in
personam jurisdiction as follows: “Venue is proper
in this district under 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(3) because
Plaintiffs purchased the subject vehicle in Johnson County
and the Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in
this district and there is no other district where the suit
may be brought.” 2d. Am. Compl. ¶ 9. The
allegations of the second amended complaint make clear that
the Landreneaus' claims rely on specific (not general)
World posits that the court does not have in
personam jurisdiction over it because its transactions
with the Landreneaus occurred exclusively in
Louisiana. Ca mping World also maintains that it had
no connection to the original purchase of the motor home in
Johnson County, Texas. As such, Camping World's contacts
with Louisiana form the ...