Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05188/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05188-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

KAREN BRANCH, mother and

legal guardian of HOLLY TOLIVER,

an incapacitated person PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 05-5188

CAMP BARNABAS,

BARNABAS FOUNDATION,

PAUL TEAS, Co-founder and

Executive Director, and

CYNDY TEAS, Co-founder and

Director of Developmental/Medical Services DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Now on the 6 day of October, 2006, comes on for th

consideration the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

(doc. 22). The Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds

and orders as follows with respect thereto: 

1. The plaintiff, Karen Branch, mother and legal guardian

of Holly Toliver, an incapacitated person (hereinafter called

“Holly”), filed this action against the defendants for negligence

and outrage resulting from alleged injuries suffered by Holly

Toliver while she was a camper at Camp Barnabas. 

The defendants now move to dismiss the plaintiff’s

complaint, asserting that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction

over them.

2. The following facts are undisputed in this matter:

Case 5:05-cv-05188-JLH Document 37 Filed 10/06/06 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
2

* Barnabas Foundation, Inc., d/b/a Camp Barnabas

(“Barnabas”), is a non-profit corporation, organized under the

laws of Missouri and doing business under the laws of the State

of Missouri. The principal place of business of Barnabas is

Missouri. 

* Barnabas operates a summer camp for the disabled

in Purdy, Missouri. 

* Paul Teas and Cyndy Teas are residents and

citizens of Purdy, Barry County, Missouri. 

* Holly attended the summer camp operated by

Barnabas in Purdy, Missouri. 

* Holly was transported to Missouri for the camp by

Karen Branch. 

* The plaintiff asserts that Holly was injured while

she attended the summer camp in Missouri. Holly’s alleged injury

and the alleged consequences of the injury serve as the basis for

plaintiff’s negligence and outrage claims. 

3. Further, the plaintiff has set forth the following

allegations in support of her contention that personal

jurisdiction exists:

* The defendants conduct yearly or bi-annual

recruiting missions to Ouachita Baptist University in

Arkadelphia, Arkansas in order to recruit potential campers, as

well as volunteers from the state of Arkansas. 

Case 5:05-cv-05188-JLH Document 37 Filed 10/06/06 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
3

* The plaintiff learned of the defendants through a

relative and professor at Ouachita Baptist University,

Arkadelphia, Arkansas, upon one of the defendants’ recruiting

missions to the university. 

* The defendants have run television advertisements,

on local channel, 40/29 KHBS/KHOG, to recruit campers and

volunteers. The television advertisements are broadcast within

KHBS/KHOG’s viewing area, including, but not limited to, Benton,

Franklin, Logan, Madison, Sebastian and Washington Counties in

Arkansas. 

4. “When personal jurisdiction is challenged, plaintiff

has the burden to show that jurisdiction exists.” Burlington

Industries Inc. v. Maples Industries, 97 F.3d 1100, 1102 (8th

Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). “[T]he burden does not shift to

the party challenging jurisdiction." Gould v. P.T. Krakatau

Steel, 957 F.2d 573, 575 (8th Cir.), cert. denied 506 U.S. 908

(1992), citing Newhard, Cook & Co. v. Inspired Life Centers,

Inc., 895 F.2d 1226, 1228 (8th Cir. 1990). 

In line with the foregoing authorities, the plaintiff has

the burden of making a prima facie showing of this Court’s

jurisdiction over the defendants. See First National Bank of

Lewisville, Arkansas v. First National Bank of Clinton, Kentucky,

258 F.3d 727, 729 (8 Cir. 2001); Falkirk Min. Co. v. Japan th

Steel Works, Ltd., 906 F.2d 369, 373 (8 Cir. 1990). Moreover, th

Case 5:05-cv-05188-JLH Document 37 Filed 10/06/06 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
 Courts are to apply the “minimum contacts” standard developed in International Shoe and its progeny. Hilderbrand 1

v. Steck Mfg. Co., Inc., 279 F.Supp.2d 1351, 1355 (Fed.Cir. Feb. 7, 2002).

4

“[d]etermining whether jurisdiction exists over an out-of-state

defendant involves two inquiries: (1) whether a forum’s long-arm

statute permits the assertion of jurisdiction and (2) whether

assertion of personal jurisdiction violates federal due process.”

Graphics Controls Corp. v. Utah Med. Prods., Inc., 149 F.3d 1382,

1385 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(footnote omitted). 

Because Arkansas’ long-arm statute permits the assertion of

jurisdiction to the extent permitted by the Due Process Clause, Ark.

Code Ann. § 16-4-101(B) (Supp. 1995); see also Kilcrease v. Butler,

293 Ark. 454, 455, 739 S.W.2d 139 (1987), the sole inquiry this

Court need make is whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is

consistent with the due process clause . See 3D Systems, Inc. V. 1

Aarotech Laboratories, Inc., 160 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998);

see also Epps v. Stewart Information Services Corp., 327 F.3d 642,

647 (8 Cir. 2003). th

“The Due Process Clause protects an individual’s liberty

interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum

with which he has no meaningful ‘contacts, ties, or relations.’”

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72

(1985)(quotation omitted). Due process requires sufficient “minimum

contacts” between the defendant and the forum state so that

“maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair

Case 5:05-cv-05188-JLH Document 37 Filed 10/06/06 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
5

play and substantial justice.” World-Wide Volkswagon Corp. v.

Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291-92 (1980). 

To satisfy its burden, a plaintiff asserting jurisdiction must

establish either specific jurisdiction or general jurisdiction.

Merck & Co., Inc. v. Barr Lab., Inc., 179 F.Supp.2d 368, 371 (D.Del.

2002); Mason v. Mooney Aircraft Corp., 2003 WL 21244160 (W.D.

Missouri)(Slip Opinion)(May 8, 2003)(explaining differences in two

concepts). 

Specific jurisdiction arises when the particular cause of

action arose from the defendant’s activities within the forum state;

general jurisdiction arises when the defendant has continuous and

systematic contacts with the state, irrespective of whether

defendant’s connections are related to the particular cause of

action. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S.

408, 414 (1984); see also Viam Corp. V. Iowa Export-Import Trading

Co., 84 F.3d 424, 427 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(specific jurisdiction

distinguished from general jurisdiction; general jurisdiction where

defendant’s contacts at issue have no necessary relationship to the

cause of action). Before addressing the issue specifically, it is

important to review the authorities governing the two types of

jurisdiction. 

(a) General Personal Jurisdiction -- Due process focuses on

the fundamental fairness of exercising jurisdiction over a

nonresident defendant, and therefore, "it is essential in each case

Case 5:05-cv-05188-JLH Document 37 Filed 10/06/06 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
6

that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails

itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum

State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws."

Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). 

The United States Supreme Court has held that to maintain

general jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, the facts must

establish “substantial” or “continuous and systematic general

business contacts” with the forum state. Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at

416. Such affiliations are construed in light of the Due Process

Clause which permits the Court to exercise jurisdiction only if

doing so would not “offend traditional notions of fair play and

substantial justice." International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S.

310, 316 (1945). That is, a defendant must “reasonably anticipate

being haled into court” in the remote forum. World-Wide Volkswagon

Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). While lack of physical

presence in a state cannot alone defeat jurisdiction, “random,”

“fortuitous,” or “attenuated” contacts do not count in the minimum

contacts calculus. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462,

475 (1985). If a party is amenable to general jurisdiction, then it

can be said that it has such numerous contacts with the forum that

it may be haled into court in that forum even for a suit not arising

out of its forum contacts. See Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 416. 

A showing of contacts alone, however, is not enough; a foreign

defendant may still defeat jurisdiction by marshaling a compelling

Case 5:05-cv-05188-JLH Document 37 Filed 10/06/06 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
7

case that its exercise would be unreasonable or contrary to concepts

of fair play and substantial justice. Viam Corp., 84 F.3d at 429. 

“The test of unreasonableness is a multi-factored balancing test

that weighs any burdens on the defendant, against various

countervailing considerations, including the plaintiff’s interest in

a convenient forum and the forum state’s interest in resolving

conflicts flowing from in-state events.” Id., citing Burger King

Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. at 477. For these reasons, a

“plaintiff must show significantly more than mere minimum contacts

to establish general jurisdiction.” Molnlycke Health Care AB v.

Dumex Medical Surgical Prod., Ltd., 64 F.Supp.2d 448, 450 (E.D. Pa.

1999). 

Once defendants’ contacts with the forum have been established,

the Court considers the following factors in deciding whether to

exercise jurisdiction:

(1) the nature and quality of defendants’ contacts with

the forum state; 

(2) the quantity of such contacts; 

(3) the relation of the cause of action to the contacts; 

(4) the interest of the forum state in providing a forum

for its residents; and

(5) the convenience of the parties. 

Epps, 327 F.3d at 648, citing Burlington Industries, Inc. v.

Maple Industries, Inc., 97 F.3d 1100, 1102 (8 Cir. 1996)(addt’l th

Case 5:05-cv-05188-JLH Document 37 Filed 10/06/06 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
8

citations omitted). In applying these factors, the central inquiry

is the “relationship among the defendant, the forum and the

litigation.” Land-O-Nod Co. v. Bassett Furniture, Inc., 708 F.2d

1338, 1340 (8 Cir. 1983)(quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. th

186, 204 (1977)). 

Finally, even where a jurisdictional threshold can be

established, “personal jurisdiction may be defeated if its exercise

would be unreasonable” and in making this determination, the Court

considers factors such as 

(a) the burden on the defendant; (b) the

interest of the forum state; (c) the plaintiff’s

interest in obtaining relief; (d) the interstate

judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most

efficient resolution of controversies; and (e)

the shared interest of the several states in

furthering fundamental substantive social

policy.

Asahi, 480 U.S. at 113-14; Falkirk Mining Co. v. Japan Steel

Works, Ltd., 906 F.2d 369, 374 (8 Cir. 1990). th

(b) Specific Personal Jurisdiction – Specific personal

jurisdiction is distinguished from general personal jurisdiction in

that specific jurisdiction usually refers to a “situation in which

the cause of action arises directly from the defendant’s contacts

with the forum State.” Viam Corp. v. Iowa Export-Import Trading

Co., 84 F.3d 424 (C.A. Fed. 1996). 

Case 5:05-cv-05188-JLH Document 37 Filed 10/06/06 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
9

5. In light of the foregoing authorities and considerations,

the Court will examine each of the plaintiff’s contentions in

support of personal jurisdiction. 

* First, the plaintiff contends that the defendants conduct

yearly or bi-annual recruiting missions to Ouachita Baptist

University in Arkadelphia, Arkansas in order to recruit potential

campers, as well as volunteers from the state of Arkansas. Further,

the plaintiff asserts that she first learned of the defendants

through a relative and professor at Ouachita Baptist University, in

Arkadelphia, Arkansas, after one of the defendants’ recruiting

missions to the university. 

The defendants strongly deny that recruiting missions ever

occurred in the state of Arkansas. The defendants support their

denial with the Affidavit of Cynthia Teas which states that 

Neither Barnabas Foundation nor any of its employees or

agents nor Paul Teas nor Cynthia Teas conduct yearly or

bi-annual recruiting missions to Ouachita Baptist

University in Arkadelphia, Arkansas.

The affidavit further states that 

On one occasion it is believed that the wife of a Barnabas

Foundation employee was at an OBU alumni function in

Arkadelphia and discussed Camp Barnabas with some of the

attendees. However, to the best of my knowledge this was

not an official recruiting visit for volunteer counselors

and in no event was it a recruiting visit for campers.

Plaintiff disputes defendants’ statements -- and supports her

argument with an affidavit from both the plaintiff and Holly’s

Case 5:05-cv-05188-JLH Document 37 Filed 10/06/06 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
10

grandmother in which they state that they learned of Barnabas in

1998 through a professor at Ouachita Baptist University following a

“recruiting trip”. However, even if this point were to be resolved

in plaintiff’s favor, the Court believes that a single “recruiting

trip” in 1998 is de minimis contact, at best, and would be

insufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over

the defendants. 

* Plaintiff also argues that defendants have run television

advertisements on local channel 40/29, KHBS/KHOG, to recruit campers

and volunteers. She asserts that the television advertisements were

broadcast within KHBS/KHOG’s viewing area, including, but not

limited to, Benton, Franklin, Logan, Madison, Sebastian and

Washington Counties in Arkansas. Plaintiff supports her contention

with the affidavits of Karen Branch, Brooke Blatchley, and Steve

Maher. These affidavits state that each affiant witnessed

television commercials on ABC Channel 40/29 that included

photographs of both Camp Barnabas and the Strong Law Firm -- which

firm provides legal representation for Barnabas. 

Defendants again strongly contend that they do not directly

advertise or promote its services in the State of Arkansas. Cyndy

Teas has affirmed that Barnabas has never advertised on any

television station including ABC 40/29 KHBS/KHOG in Northwest

Arkansas. Although the defendants do admit to being in television

advertisements purchased by and for the Strong Law Firm, Steven

Case 5:05-cv-05188-JLH Document 37 Filed 10/06/06 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
11

Harrell of the Strong Law Firm has affirmed that it never advertised

on ABC 40/29 KHBS/KHOG or any other Arkansas television station.

Further, the defendants have supplied the Court with the affidavit

of Mark McGeary, the General Sales Manager for ABC 40/29 KHBS/KHOG.

According to McGeary, he has reviewed the station’s sales records

since 2002, and neither the Strong Law Firm nor the defendants have

purchased or run advertisements on KHBS/KHOG. 

In light of the foregoing, the Court is extremely doubtful that

plaintiff can show, as fact, that even a single television

advertisement was shown on an Arkansas Television station. Leaving

aside the issue of whether any of the affiants would have a motive

to lie about the matter, the records of the station whereon

plaintiff’s affiants allegedly saw the commercials in question are

said (by an affiant who is not involved in this case) to show that

no such commercials were ever purchased from that station nor shown

thereon. Based on this evidence, the Court does not believe

plaintiff has met her burden of showing that such “contacts”

occurred so as to warrant the exercise of personal jurisdiction in

this case. 

Accordingly, Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (doc. 22)

should be, and hereby is, granted and the plaintiff’s complaint is

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

Case 5:05-cv-05188-JLH Document 37 Filed 10/06/06 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05188-JLH Document 37 Filed 10/06/06 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>