Fontenot v. Mullins Mfg Co Inc ( 1996 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
___________________________
No. 95-31013
Summary Calendar
___________________________
HUBERT FONTENOT,
d/b/a Fontenot's Meter Clock Service, Inc.
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
MULLINS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
___________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana
(94-CV-1676)
____________________________________________________
May 1, 1996
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Hubert Fontenot appeals the district court's dismissal of his
suit against Mullins Manufacturing Company for lack of personal
jurisdiction. We reverse.
I.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
This case began in Louisiana state court. Fontenot, a
Louisiana resident who repairs clocks, filed suit in St. Landry
Parish alleging that Mullins, a Texas corporation, had
intentionally failed to fill his orders for various parts. He
claimed that Mullins was attempting to put him out of business and
to create a monopoly over the repair of the devices it
manufactures. Fontenot requested damages in an amount not to
exceed $49,999 and any "penalties, attorneys' fees, costs, and
relief" available under Louisiana law, including treble damages
under Louisiana's Unfair Trade Practices Act. La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§ 51:1409 (West 1987).
Mullins removed the case to federal court on diversity
grounds. Arguing that he had not placed greater than S50,000 in
controversy, Fontenot filed a motion for a remand. The district
court denied the motion, sua sponte finding that it had federal
question jurisdiction because the facts set out by Fontenot in the
complaint supported claims under the Sherman and the Clayton Anti-
Trust Acts.
II.
Fontenot does not challenge the district court's determination
that his complaint stated causes of action under the Sherman and
Clayton Acts. The only issue presented on appeal is whether the
court has personal jurisdiction over Mullins. This court has
recognized that the Clayton Act provides for nationwide service of
process. Black v. Acme Markets, Inc., 564 F.2d 681, 683-84 (5th
Cir. 1977). "[W]hen a federal court is attempting to exercise
personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a suit based upon a
federal statute providing for nationwide service of process, the
relevant inquiry is whether the defendant has had minimum contacts
with the United States." Busch v. Buchman, Buchman & O'Brien, Law
Firm, 11 F.3d 1255, 1257 (5th Cir. 1994)(citing, inter alia, Go-
Video Inc. v. Akai Elec. Co., Ltd., 885 F.2d 1406, 1414-16 (9th
Cir. 1989), which relies on the Clayton Act's "worldwide" service
of process provisions to hold that a defendant need only have
minimum contacts with the United States). The relevant minimum
contacts inquiry here, therefore, is whether Mullins had sufficient
minimum contacts with the United States. Mullins is a resident of
the United States. Therefore, due process concerns and
"traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" are not
violated by the district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction
over Mullins. Id. The district court erred in dismissing this
case for lack of personal jurisdiction. We reverse and remand for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
3