Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-2956-M
February 19, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, filed on December 11, 2003, by Defendants Bradley Mannis and Divine Group, L.L.C. For the reasons stated below, Defendants' Motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Evercom Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation with offices in Texas, provides telecommunication services to correctional facilities. On March 22, 2000, Plaintiff hired Defendant Mannis, an Arkansas resident, as a sales representative to market its products and services in Arkansas and Oklahoma. During the course of his employment, Mannis made several trips to Plaintiffs Texas offices and he reported regularly to a sales manager in San Antonio, Texas via phone, fax, and email.
According to Plaintiff, Mannis informed Plaintiffs Irving, Texas office that in 2002, Divine Group, L.L.C., a limited liability company owned and operated by Mannis, was a vendor, which provided software to Plaintiffs customers. Plaintiff alleges that Mannis did not reveal to Plaintiff the true nature of his relationship with Divine Group. Plaintiff asserts that on multiple occasions Mannis and Divine Group submitted fraudulent sales action forms and invoices to Plaintiffs Irving, Texas office, for which Defendants received more than $100,000 from Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that it learned of Mannis's involvement with Divine Group in the spring of 2003, and that it terminated Mannis on May 6, 2003.
On November 11, 2003, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants in Texas state court, alleging conversion, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contract, and breach of confidentiality. On December 11, 2003, Defendants removed the action to this Court, and simultaneously filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.
ANALYSIS
When a nonresident defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the district court's jurisdiction over the nonresident. Lewis v. Fresne, 252 F.3d 352, 358 (5th Cir. 2001); Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644, 648 (5th Cir. 1994). If the district court "rules on the motion without an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff may satisfy its burden by presenting a prima facie case for jurisdiction." Gardemal v. Westin Hotel Co., 186 F.3d 588, 592 (5th Cir. 1999). In deciding whether the plaintiff has made a prima facie case, the Complaint's uncontroverted allegations must be taken as true, and factual conflicts must be resolved in favor of the plaintiff. Id.
The Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if (1) the Texas long-arm statute creates personal jurisdiction over the defendant and (2) the exercise of personal jurisdiction is consistent with the Constitution's due process requirements. Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 2002). Because the Texas long-arm statute "reaches to the constitutional limits," id. at 470, the Court need only concern itself with the due process analysis.
The Due Process Clause permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if:
(1) [the] defendant has purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of the forum state by establishing "minimum contacts" with the forum state; and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." To comport with due process, the defendant's conduct in connection with the forum state must be such that he "should reasonably anticipate being haled into court" in the forum state. Latshaw v. Johnston, 167 F.3d 208, 211 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted).
Two categories of conduct may constitute the requisite minimum contacts with the forum state: "acts specific to the instant suit, which grant a court specific jurisdiction over a defendant; or transactions, although unrelated, that are of such a `continuous and systematic' nature as to be `sufficient to allow a court to assert [general] jurisdiction over the party.'" Lexington Servs. Assocs., Ltd. v. 730 Bienville Partners. Ltd., 2001 WL 1545764, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2001) (Lynn, J.).
Plaintiff contends that its allegations that Defendants submitted fraudulent sales action forms and invoices to Plaintiff in Texas and that Mannis misrepresented to Plaintiff the nature of his relationship with Divine Group constitute sufficient minimum contacts with Texas for this Court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Defendants argue that they lack the requisite contact with Texas because Mannis did not conduct business in Texas and only communicated with Plaintiffs Texas offices via phone, fax, and email, and because the invoices submitted to Plaintiff on behalf of Divine Group were for goods and services purchased by customers in Arkansas and Oklahoma.
The Court finds Plaintiff has alleged sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to create a prima facie case. "A single act by a defendant can be enough to confer personal jurisdiction if that act gives rise to the claim being asserted."Lewis v. Fresne, 252 F.3d 352, 358-59 (5th Cir. 2001). While the inquiry hinges on whether a defendant purposely availed himself of the benefits and protection of the forum state, "[w]hen the actual content of communications with a forum gives rise to intentional tort causes of action, this alone constitutes purposeful availment." Wien Air Alaska. Inc. v. Brandt, 195 F.3d 208, 213 (5th Cir. 1999). Such a communication constitutes purposeful availment because the defendant is purposefully availing himself of the "privilege of causing a consequence" in the forum state. id. Here, Plaintiffs allegations that Mannis and Divine Group made misrepresentations to Plaintiff, if true, would give rise to intentional torts, which are sufficient to be characterized as a purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities in Texas. Accordingly, the Court finds Defendants possess sufficient contacts with Texas to warrant this Court's exercise of jurisdiction over them.
Because the Court concludes it has specific jurisdiction over Defendants, the Court need not address whether it has general jurisdiction.
The Court must next determine whether the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants nonetheless offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. "In this inquiry, it is incumbent on the defendant to present a compelling case that the presence of some consideration would render jurisdiction unreasonable." Jones v. Petty-Ray Geophysical Geosource, Inc., 954 F.2d 1061, 1068 (5th Cir. 1992). In conducting this fairness analysis, The Fifth Circuit has mandated that the trial court consider: (1) the burden on the nonresident defendant; (2) the interest of the forum state; (3) the plaintiff's interest in securing relief; (4) the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining efficient resolution of controversies; and (5) the shared interest of the states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.Bullion v. Gillespie, 895 F.2d 213, 216 n. 5 (5th Cir. 1990).
Defendants have not presented any arguments that these factors weigh against a finding that the Court has jurisdiction over them. The Court therefore finds that the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants is reasonable, and that this case should not be dismissed on grounds of fundamental unfairness.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court holds it has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, and therefore DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.