Whitehead v. ABB Lummus Global BV , 235 F. App'x 241 ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
July 24, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
__________________________ Clerk
No. 06-31174
Summary Calendar
__________________________
KANDAYCE WHITEHEAD, individually and as administratrix of
the Estate of her Husband, William Lester Whitehead
Plaintiff -
Appellant
versus.
ABB LUMMUS GLOBAL BV
Defendant -
Appellee
___________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
(No. 3:04-CV-269)
___________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
*
PER CURIAM:
The district court dismissed Whitehead’s suit against ABB Lummus Global, B.V.
(“ABB Lummus”) for lack of personal jurisdiction. Whitehead appeals, and we affirm.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Whitehead’s husband died in 2003 while working on a project in Algeria. He was
employed by Petrofac International, Ltd. (“Petrofac”). Petrofac and ABB Lummus, a
Netherlands-based company, were joint venturers in the project. Whitehead, individually
and as administratrix of her deceased husband’s estate, filed a suit in diversity against
Petrofac and the Houston-based corporation ABB Lummus Global, Inc. (“ABB Global”),
alleging negligence and wrongful death. After ABB Global was dismissed from the suit
(because it was not involved in the Algeria project), Whitehead amended her complaint
to include ABB Lummus as a co-defendant.
Petrofac submitted to the jurisdiction of the Louisiana district court but filed a
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based on the exclusivity provisions of the Louisiana Worker’s
Compensation Act. See LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 23:1032(A). The district court granted the
motion. Subsequently, ABB Lummus moved for dismissal based on lack of personal
jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion, and in its ruling, the district court
determined that Whitehead had not established that ABB Lummus had minimum contacts
with Louisiana because Whitehead had only alleged that an unknown representative,
possibly affiliated with ABB Lummus, met with Whitehead’s husband in Texas in order
to provide him with an airplane ticket to Algeria. Whitehead timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
This court reviews de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Moncrief Oil Int’l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 481 F.3d 309, 311 (5th Cir. 2007).
2
In order for personal jurisdiction to satisfy due process requirements, a plaintiff must
establish that the defendant had minimum contacts with the forum state and that the
exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice. Id. Personal jurisdiction may be general or specific. Seiferth v.
Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266, 271 (5th Cir. 2006). Where the defendant’s
contacts are “continuous and systematic, a court may exercise general jurisdiction.” Id.
(internal quotation omitted). Where a defendant’s contacts are relatively few but give rise
to the suit, then a court may exercise specific jurisdiction. Id.
Whitehead essentially makes three arguments on appeal. First, she argues, as she
did in the district court, that, because Petrofac consented to jurisdiction, ABB Lummus, as
the joint venturer, also consented to jurisdiction. Whitehead points out that parties to a
joint venture are mutually liable for injuries sustained by their venture. Whitehead
contends that, from this proposition, it follows that if one party submits to the jurisdiction
of the court, then the other party to the joint venture necessarily submits to jurisdiction as
well. Second, she claims that an ABB Lummus representative’s contact with her husband
in Texas suffices to show specific jurisdiction. Third, she maintains that there was general
jurisdiction because ABB Lummus and ABB Global are affiliated entities that share
employees and share information through a website that can be accessed worldwide.
We reject Whitehead’s arguments and agree with the district court. She cites no
authority for the proposition that a joint venturer becomes subject to the personal
jurisdiction of a federal court solely because another joint venturer consents to such
3
jurisdiction. Additionally, she alleges that a representative provided an airline ticket to
her husband, but she does not demonstrate that the representative was from ABB
Lummus; this allegation does not confer specific jurisdiction. See, e.g., Moncrief, 481 F.3d
at 311–12. Finally, ABB Lummus states that, as a company based in the Netherlands, it has
no corporate officers, subsidiaries, or property in the United States, nor is it qualified to
do business in this country. ABB Lummus also avers that none of its employees reside or
are assigned to work in the United States. ABB Lummus does not have continuous and
systemic contacts to warrant general jurisdiction. See Bearry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 818
F.2d 370, 374–75 (5th Cir. 1987). “The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing
jurisdiction,” Seiferth, 472 F.3d at 270, and we hold that Whitehead has not met that
burden here.
III. CONCLUSION
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
4