Alexander v. Anheuser-Busch ( 2021 )

Case: 19-30993 Document: 00515967467 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 5, 2021
No. 19-30993 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Bruce Alexander,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Anheuser-Busch, L.L.C., improperly named as Anheuser-
Busch; Joao Mauricio Giffoni de Castro Neves;
Anheuser-Busch Inbev Worldwide, Incorporated;
Carlos Brito,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:19-CV-738
Before Jones, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Personal jurisdiction refers to a court’s power to exercise authority
over a particular defendant, and that power is subject to various limitations.
This case asks us to decide whether the district court correctly concluded
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-30993 Document: 00515967467 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2021
No. 19-30993
that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants in this action. We
hold that it did.
I.
Bruce Alexander, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in federal court.
In it he claims to have testified at a murder trial in 2006. His testimony
seemingly did not favor the accused because sometime thereafter, Alexander
claims, the criminal defendant’s father hired the Sheriff of Morehouse Parish
and the local division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to kill him.
These hit men purportedly organized all the local business owners, business
managers, and doctors to place Alexander under constant surveillance and
poison him. He alleged that “they conspired with the Bud Light, Budweiser,
and Busch Company and/or distributors” to poison his beer, causing him to
have heart attacks, hemorrhaging, and other ongoing medical problems.
Alexander named as defendants Anheuser-Busch Worldwide (“AB
Worldwide”); Anheuser-Busch, LLC; CT Corporation System, Registered
Agent (“CT Corporation”); Joao Mauricio Giffoni de Castro Neves, the
former Zone President, North America, of Anheuser-Busch, LLC; and
Carlos Brito, the CEO of Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, a Belgian
company. He sought $55,000,000 in compensatory damages and
$150,000,000 in punitive damages.
Despite having named CT Corporation as a defendant, Alexander
made no allegations against it. The other four defendants filed motions to
dismiss, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(2) and failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). To support their motions, they submitted declarations
about the business and operations of Anheuser-Busch companies in
Louisiana. The declarations indicated that AB Worldwide is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri, that the company
2
Case: 19-30993 Document: 00515967467 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/05/2021
No. 19-30993
is not registered to conduct business in Louisiana, and that it does not
conduct business in Louisiana. They also stated that Anheuser-Busch, LLC
is a Missouri company with its principal place of business in Missouri, and
that it distributes its products through a network of independent wholesalers,
including some in Louisiana, but that the company has no ownership interest
in a Louisiana-based wholesaler. The declarations further noted that
although Anheuser-Busch, LLC has seven employees in Louisiana, it does
not maintain a regional office there and its sales there account for two percent
of its sales in the United States.
In response, Alexander asserted that CT Corporation of Baton Rouge
is a registered agent for Anheuser-Busch, LLC and that the presence of a
registered agent in the state shows that the company does business in the
state.
A magistrate judge recommended granting the motions to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim.
And without ruling on the alternative recommendation that the complaint
failed to state a claim, the district court accepted the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation, dismissing the claims without prejudice for lack
of personal jurisdiction. This appeal followed.
II.
We review a district court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction
de novo. Patterson v. Aker Sols. Inc., 826 F.3d 231, 233 (5th Cir. 2016). The
plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by presenting at least
prima facie evidence thereof. Id.A federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident
defendant if “the forum state’s long-arm statute extends to the nonresident
defendant and the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process.”
Carmona v. Leo Ship Mgmt., Inc., 924 F.3d 190, 193 (5th Cir. 2019). Here the
3
Case: 19-30993 Document: 00515967467 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/05/2021
No. 19-30993
inquiry is reduced to whether jurisdiction comports with federal
constitutional guarantees because “[t]he limits of the Louisiana long-arm
statute are coextensive with constitutional due process limits.” Jackson v.
Tanfoglio Giuseppe, S.R.L., 615 F.3d 579, 584 (5th Cir. 2010).
The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause limits the power
of a court to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant. That provision prevents
a tribunal from exercising authority unless the defendant has “such
‘contacts’ with the forum State that ‘the maintenance of the suit’ is
‘reasonable, in the context of our federal system of government,’ and ‘does
not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Ford Motor
Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1024 (quoting International
Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316–17 (1945)). The inquiry thus
focuses “on the nature and extent of ‘the defendant’s relationship to the
forum State.’” Id. (quoting Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal.,
San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1779 (2017)).
The Supreme Court has recognized two kinds of personal jurisdiction:
general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. Id. General jurisdiction arises
when the defendant has “continuous and systematic” contacts with the
forum and “allows for jurisdiction over all claims against the defendant, no
matter their connection to the forum.” In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.,
Pinnacle Hip Implant Prod. Liab. Litig., 888 F.3d 753, 778 (5th Cir. 2018).
Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand, “covers defendants less intimately
connected with a State, but only as to a narrower class of claims.” Ford Motor
Co., 141 S. Ct. at 1024. To be subject to specific jurisdiction, the defendant
must have acted to “purposefully avail[] itself of the privilege of conducting
activities within the forum State” and “there must be an affiliation between
the forum and the underlying controversy.” Id. at 1024–25 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
4
Case: 19-30993 Document: 00515967467 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/05/2021
No. 19-30993
We apply a three-prong test in determining whether the exercise of
specific jurisdiction comports with the demands of due process. We evaluate
whether (1) the defendant has formed minimum contacts with the forum
state by purposely directing its activities toward the forum state or
purposefully availing itself of the privileges of the state; (2) whether the cause
of action arises out of or results from the defendant’s forum-related contacts;
and (3) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is fair and reasonable.
Carmona, 924 F.3d at 193 (citing Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472
F.3d 266, 271 (5th Cir. 2006)).
III.
We begin by noting the absence of general jurisdiction with respect to
each of the defendants here. 1 The district court concluded that Alexander
failed to establish such jurisdiction and he has proffered no argument on
appeal challenging that conclusion or showing how any of the defendants are
“at home” in Louisiana. See Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 122
(2014). Furthermore, the district court found that the fiduciary shield
doctrine—which disallows exercising personal jurisdiction over individuals
merely because they transact business in the forum as corporate officers, see
Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185, 1197 (5th Cir. 1985)—barred it from
exercising personal jurisdiction over the executives Castro Neves and Brito.
And Alexander waives that issue on appeal by making no argument
1
The foundation for our own jurisdiction over this appeal should be noted. We
have jurisdiction over appeals from final orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Typically, when a
district court labels a judgment final without addressing all claims or defendants, it has not
rendered a final decision for purposes of § 1291. Briargrove Shopping Ctr. Joint Venture v.
Pilgrim Enters., Inc., 170 F.3d 536, 539 (5th Cir. 1999). Here, the district court did not rule
on any claims against CT Corporation. Nonetheless, that has no bearing on our jurisdiction
because Alexander raised no claims against CT Corporation. It was therefore unnecessary
for the district court to dismiss claims against this defendant and the judgment ending the
litigation is final and appealable.
5
Case: 19-30993 Document: 00515967467 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/05/2021
No. 19-30993
challenging the district court’s application of the fiduciary shield doctrine.
Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987).
We turn next to specific jurisdiction, which Alexander—having failed
to show general jurisdiction—must establish to prevail. We will address
specific jurisdiction as to each of the remaining defendants, AB Worldwide
and Anheuser-Busch, LLC, in turn.
Alexander contends that AB Worldwide “has constant contact with
the State of Louisiana through sales products and employees.” That
conclusory contention, however, is contradicted by the facts in the record.
The declarations in the record state that AB Worldwide has no business
presence in Louisiana and it does not own an interest in any of the wholesalers
who distribute its products there. And despite Alexander’s assertion, there
is no indication that AB Worldwide has any employees in Louisiana.
Moreover, Alexander makes no argument challenging the district court’s
conclusion that the exercise of jurisdiction over AB Worldwide would not be
fair or reasonable. Accordingly, Alexander has failed to establish specific
jurisdiction over AB Worldwide.
Anheuser-Busch, LLC distributes products in Louisiana through
independent, authorized wholesalers. While it has no regional office in the
state, it does have seven employees there. And its sales in Louisiana account
for two percent of its sales in the United States. Given the benefit of liberal
construction, Alexander argues that Anheuser-Busch, LLC has sufficient
minimum contacts with Louisiana by virtue of the presence of employees, the
sale of products, and the presence of a registered agent. Perhaps on this much
he is correct, but that is not enough to establish specific jurisdiction. He must
also show that his claims arise out of or result from these forum-related
contacts. See Carmona, 924 F.3d at 193. And while he need not show that
6
Case: 19-30993 Document: 00515967467 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/05/2021
No. 19-30993
these contacts caused his injury, he must at least show that they are related
to it. See Ford Motor Co., 141 S. Ct. at 1026. He fails to do so.
Anheuser-Busch, LLC has contacts with Louisiana to the extent that
it has employees there and it sells and distributes its products there through
authorized agents. But Alexander’s claims do not arise out of, or result from,
those contacts. At the risk of overstating what is plain, we note that selling
beer and poisoning beer are unrelated activities. Indeed, even a hint of
engaging in the latter activity would presumably preclude any notable success
in the former. Put simply, Alexander has not shown how selling beer in
Louisiana is in any way related to his vague allegations of a conspiracy to
poison his beer or harm him physically as he alleges. We consider the nexus
between the two much too attenuated to support the exercise of specific
jurisdiction over Anheuser-Busch, LLC.
AFFIRMED.
7