United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division
MEMORU OPINION AND ORER
LAKE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jesus Luevano ("Plaintiff") sued defendants
Colonial Pipeline Company ("Colonial") and Burns
& McDonnell, Inc. ("B&M") for negligence
after he was injured while working at Colonial's
petrochemical tank farm. Pending before the court is
Defendant Colonial Pipeline Company's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Claims for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and
Improper Venue ("Colonial's Motion to Dismiss")
(Docket Entry No. 8). For the reasons explained below,
Colonial's Motion to Dismiss will be granted.
Factual and Procedural Background
contracted with B&M to construct a tank at Colonial's
tank farm in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  B&M subcontracted with
Plaintiff's employer, Advanced Tank and Construction
("ATC"), to construct the tank. Plaintiff alleges
that he was injured while working on the tank construction
project as a result of Colonial and B&M's
is a Texas resident.Colonial is a Delaware company with
it's principal place of business in
Georgia. B&M is a Kansas corporation with
it's principal place of business in
Missouri. Plaintiff filed this action on February 4,
2019. Colonial responded by filing its Motion to
Dismiss. Plaintiff responded to Colonial's
Motion to Dismiss and requested leave to amend his complaint
after taking jurisdictional discovery. On April 4, 2019,
the court granted Plaintiff's request to take
jurisdiction discovery and allowed Plaintiff to file an
amended Complaint by June 14, 2019. The court modified the
deadline for Plaintiff to submit his amended complaint to
July 3, 2019, in a subsequent order. Plaintiff has not filed
an amended complaint.
Standard of Review
for lack of personal jurisdiction is governed by Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b) (2). When a foreign defendant moves
to dismiss for lack of 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, 124 S.Ct. 66 (2003) (quoting Mink v. A
Development LLC, 190 F.3d 333, 335 (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 343-44 (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, interrogatories, depositions, oral
testimony, or any combination of the recognized methods of
discovery. '" Id. at 344 (quoting
Thompson v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 755 F.2d 1162,
1165 (5th Cir. 1985)).
court must accept as true the uncontroverted allegations in
Plaintiff's Complaint and must resolve any factual
conflicts in favor of Plaintiff. See Guidry v. United
States Tobacco Co., Inc., 188 F.3d 619, 625 (5th Cir.
1999). However, the court is not obligated to credit
conclusory allegations, even if uncontroverted. Panda
Brandywine Corp. v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 253 F.3d
865, 869 (5th Cir. 2001). "Absent any dispute as to the
relevant facts, the issue of whether personal jurisdiction
may be exercised over a nonresident defendant is a question
of law. . . .I Ruston Gas Turbines, Inc. v. Donaldson
Co., Inc., 9 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 1993) .
court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident
defendant if "(1) the forum state's long-arm statute
confers personal jurisdiction over that defendant; and (2)
the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." McFadin
v. Gerber, 587 F.3d 753, 759 (5th Cir. 2009), cert.
denied, 131 S.Ct. 68 (2010). Since the Texas long-arm
statute extends as far as constitutional due process allows,
the court considers only the second step of the inquiry.
of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant
comports with federal due process guarantees when the
nonresident defendant has established minimum contacts with
the forum state, and the exercise of jurisdiction "does
not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.'" International Shoe Co. v.
State of Washington, Office of Unemployent Compensation and
Placement, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158 (1945) (quoting
Milliken v. Meyer, 61 S.Ct. 339, 343 (1940)) . A
plaintiff satisfying these requirements raises a presumption
that exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant is
reasonable, and the burden shifts to the defendants to
present "a compelling case that the presence of some
other considerations would render jurisdiction
unreasonable." Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
105 S.Ct. 2174, 2185 (1985). "The 'minimum
contacts' inquiry is fact intensive and no one element is
decisive; rather the touchstone is whether the
defendant's conduct shows that [he] 'reasonably
anticipate[d] being haled into court'" in the forum.
McFadin, 587 F.3d at 759. "There are two types
of 'minimum contacts': those that give rise to
specific personal jurisdiction and those that give rise to
general personal jurisdiction." Lewis v.
Fresne, 252 F.3d 352, 358 (5th Cir. 2001).
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." Goodyear
Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131
S.Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011). General personal jurisdiction grants
the court jurisdiction over "any claim against
[a] defendant, even if all the incidents underlying the claim
occurred in a different State." Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco
County,137 S.Ct. 1773, 1780 (2017) (emphasis in the
original). "Establishing general jurisdiction is
'difficult' and requires 'extensive contacts
between a defendant and a forum.'" Sangha v.
Navig8 ShipManagement Private Limited,882 F.3d 96,
101-02 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Johnston v. Multidata
Systems International Corp.,523 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir.
2008)). Vague allegations "that give no indication as to
the extent, duration, or frequency of contacts are
insufficient to support general jurisdiction."
Johnston, 523 F.3d at 610. Only in "exceptional