Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Specific Personal Jurisdiction Is a Claim-Specific Inquiry — Jurisdiction Exists Only for Claims Tied to Venue, and for Tort Claims Arising out of Contract with Sufficient Ties to Venue

From Cantex Energy Corp. v. World Stock Exch., LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67736 (W.D. Tex Aug. 4, 2009):

[T]he Fifth Circuit rather recently decided as an issue of first impression that specific personal jurisdiction is a claim-specific inquiry, holding that "[a] plaintiff bringing multiple claims that arise out of different forum contacts of the defendant must establish personal jurisdiction for each claim." Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266, 274 (5th Cir. 2006). 7 Accordingly, in the absence of general personal jurisdiction, the Due Process Clause prohibits the exercise of jurisdiction over any claim that does not arise out of or result from the defendant's forum contacts. Id. at 275.

[Footnote 7] This Court has previously applied Seiferth in a case involving claims for breach of contract and tort, concluding that Seiferth does not require a plaintiff to separately establish specific personal jurisdiction for each claim when all claims arise out of the same forum contacts, but rather that due process permits a court to assert jurisdiction over all related claims that arise out of a defendant's minimum contacts with the forum. Sutton v. Advanced Aquaculture Systems, Inc., Civ. A. No. SA-07-CA-175-XR, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55396, 2007 WL 2220900 (W.D. Tex. 2007). Similarly, in Kapche v. Philip Seifert & Liberty Capitol, Civ. A. No. H-06-00083, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74399, 2007 WL 2915003 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2007), Judge Miller acknowledged Seiferth, but noted that specific jurisdiction for each claim did not need to be addressed separately because the actions giving rise to the claims of breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation were "either the same or intertwined and also involve the same parties."

Share this article:


Recent Posts