IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20095

STROMAN REALTY, INC.

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SAM WERCINSKI, 

Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate for the State of Arizona

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Texas

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

EDITH H. JONES, Chief Judge:

Stroman Realty, Inc. (“Stroman”), a Texas-based company, sought relief

in a Texas federal court from attempts by the Commissioner of the Arizona

Department of Real Estate to exercise regulatory authority over Stroman’s

timeshare sales business. The district court dismissed its action, which alleged

violations of the Commerce Clause under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because the federal

district court in Texas lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Stroman is one of the nation’s largest advertisers and resale brokers of

timeshare intervals in the secondary resale market. It advertises properties to

individuals interested in either selling their timeshare interests or purchasing

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 11, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-20095

1 Sam Wercinski, who replaced Elaine Richardson as Commissioner on January 11,

2007, is automatically substituted as the Defendant-Appellee in this matter. See FED. R. CIV.

P. 25(d)(1). 

2

timeshares from a previous owner other than the vacation resorts or

condominium developers. Stroman’s sole place of business is located in Conroe,

Texas. Its brokers are licensed by the Texas Real Estate Commission, and the

advertising and marketing agreements they negotiate with Stroman’s clients are

governed by Texas law.

Because most timeshare buyers do not live in the state in which their

desired property is located, Stroman advertises in national newspapers, trade

magazines,through direct-mail publications, and over the Internet. Prospective

purchasers can search Stroman’s website for availabilities at condominiums,

resorts, or spas, and read about the occupancy conditions of the various

timeshare intervals being offered. Interested parties then submit bids through

the website or call a Stroman broker. Stroman uses its computer database to

match prospective buyers with such variables as location, price range, amenities,

and use interval. Prospective sellers are required to pay a one-time $489.00

“advance advertising fee” to register their timeshares with Stroman’s Internet

database, and, upon sale, the seller pays Stroman an additional $750.00 or 10%

of the total sale price — whichever is greater — as commission. Often, the

seller, prospective buyer, and timeshare property involved in a single deal are

all located in different states. It would thus not be unusual for Stroman to

broker a transaction involving aTexas buyer and an Arizona seller of a two-week

timeshare interval at a Hawaii resort.

In January 2000, Elaine Richardson, Commissioner of the Arizona

Department of Real Estate (“Commissioner”),1sent Stroman by certified mail a

Cease-and-Desist Order (“Order”) stating that Stroman’s agents were not

licensed as real estate brokers or salespeople in Arizona. Under Arizona law,
No. 06-20095

2

Insupport ofthe Order,the Commissioner referenced five unlicensed timeshare resale

transactions involving Stroman and Arizona residents or real property:

1. An Arizona timeshare broker filed a complaint averring that he received an

advertisement from Stroman, in violation of Arizona law, soliciting the sale of

his Arizona timeshare interests stating: “Dear All Seasons Resorts Inc Would

(sic) you be willing to sell your Timeshare Property for cash? Call Today: TOLL

FREE 1-800-829-1544”;

2. A Stroman agent drafted contracts on behalf of Arizona resident-sellers for

purchase oftwo Sedona, Arizona,timeshare intervals. The sellers learned about

Stroman through direct-mail and via the Internet; 

3. An Arizona resident filed a complaint stating that he paid Stroman a $489.00

advertising fee and entered into a listing agreement for the sale of a Las Vegas,

Nevada, timeshare interval, but that Stroman failed to provide him with any

examples of advertisements or prospects for the resale of the timeshare;

4. An Arizona resident contracted with Stroman and paid a $489.00 advertising

fee for sale of her Olympic Village, California, timeshare and paid two more

$489.00 fees for listings of two Vail, Colorado, timeshares, but that since listing

with Stroman she has heard nothing about the status of the properties;

5. An Arizona resident informed the Department that she had received “many”

3

nonresident brokers and other real estate service providers who transact

business involving either Arizona citizens or real property located in Arizona

must be licensed by the Commissioner whether or not the timeshare property

the Arizona citizen wishes to buy or sell is located in Arizona. See ARIZ. REV.

STAT. §§ 32-2101(47)(b)–(j); 32-2125.02. Nonresident brokers like Stroman are

subject to various administrative and record-keeping requirements, such as

maintaining in-state escrow accounts, hard copies of earnest-money receipts,

closing statements, and other business records. See, e.g., id. §§ 32-2125.02,

32-2151.01. Unlicensed brokering of transactions involving Arizona real

property or timeshares is a “Class 6 felony,” punishable by fine or up to two

years’ imprisonment. See id. § 32-2165(A).

The Commissioner’s Order maintained that Stroman and its agents were

engaging in unlicensed timeshare resale brokering and ordered Stroman to cease

“all contact with Arizona resident and non-resident owners of real estate located

in Arizona . . . by mail, telephone, telefax, computer modem or any other means”

until it complied with Arizona’s licensing laws.2 Additionally, Stroman was
No. 06-20095

Stroman mailings soliciting resale of her Scottsdale, Arizona, timeshare.

4

instructed to refund “all monies solicited from Arizona resident and non-resident

owners of real estate” received in the course of Stroman’s allegedly illicit

brokerage transactions. The Order stated that Stroman had the right to invoke

an administrative review procedure and that failure to file a notice of appeal

within thirty days of service of process would constitute waiver of any future

right to administrative or judicial appeal. See id. § 41-1092. Stroman did not

respond. Pursuant to Arizona law, the Order thus became a final, nonappealable, administrative decision. See id. § 12-902(B).

For five years, the Commissioner took no action, and Stroman —

undeterred by the Order — continued to broker transactions involving Arizona

timeshares and residents. In March 2005, however, the Commissioner contacted

Stroman by mail, ordering anew that it cease its Arizona-related brokerage

activities. This time around, the Commissioner added a charge that Arizona

real-estate law forbade advertisement of Arizona properties on Stroman’s

Internet website. See id. § 32-2163(D). In response, on April 8, 2005, Stroman

filed a complaint in the Southern District of Texas seeking declaratory and

injunctive relief againstthe Commissioner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that

Arizona’s attempted exercise of regulatory jurisdiction to license timeshare

resales violated the Commerce Clause by discriminatorily and unduly burdening

nonresident participation in the interstate secondary timeshare market.

The Commissioner then moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b), arguing that: (1) the Arizona administrative proceeding

rendered Stroman’s § 1983 claim res judicata; (2) the district court lacked

personal jurisdiction over her; and (3) venue was improper. The Commissioner

also moved for summary judgment on the statute of limitations. The district

court granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss based on claim preclusion
No. 06-20095

3 Because we hold that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Commissioner,

we decline to reach the other issues argued on appeal. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(4) (lack of

personal jurisdiction over defendant allows case to be dismissed).

4 See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; DeMelo v. Toche Marine, Inc., 711 F.2d 1260, 1269 (5th Cir.

1983). 

5

and — raising the issue sua sponte — abstention under Burford v. Sun Oil Co.,

319 U.S. 315 (1943). The district court did not address the other issues.

Stroman has appealed.

DISCUSSION

Personal Jurisdiction

Why the district court failed to consider personal jurisdiction over the

Commissioner in a Texas federal court is unclear. This court must do so.3

Because the district court dismissed without the benefit of an evidentiary

hearing, Stroman need make only a prima facie showing that jurisdiction is

proper. Adams v. Unione Mediterranea Di Sicurta, 364 F.3d 646, 650 (5th Cir.

2004) (citation omitted). We accept as true Stroman’s uncontroverted allegations

and construe all record evidence in its favor. Id.

Because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lacks a provision for service of process,4federal

courts adopt state jurisdictional statutes to reach out-of-state defendants. See

FED. R. CIV.P. 4(e), (k); Point Landing, Inc. v. Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd., 795 F.2d

415, 419 (5th Cir. 1986), aff'd sub nom. Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff

& Co., 484 U.S. 97 (1987). The Texas long-arm statute is coextensive with the

federal constitutional limits of due process and normally generates an inquiry

limited to the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See

Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Liebreich, 339 F.3d 369, 373 (5th Cir. 2003). But where,

as here, the case involves a challenge to an out-of-state regulator’s enforcement

of her state’s statute, rather than a conventional contract or tort claim, it is
No. 06-20095

6

useful to consider first whether the Texas long-arm statute reaches the

Commissioner.

A. Texas long-arm statute

Pertinent here, the Texas long-arm statute states:

In addition to other acts that may constitute doing business, a

nonresident does business in this state if the nonresident:

(1) contracts by mail or otherwise with a Texas resident

and either party is to perform the contract in whole or in part

in this state; [or]

(2) commits a tort in whole or in part in this state; . . . . 

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 17.042. “‘[N]onresident’ includes: (1) an

individual who is not a resident of this state; and (2) a foreign corporation,

joint-stock company, association, or partnership.” TEX. CIV.PRAC. & REM. CODE

ANN. § 17.041.

One question arising from this language is whether the Commissioner,

sued under the fiction created by Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), is an

“individual” defendant within the terms of the statute. Ex Parte Young subjects

a state employee acting in her official capacity to suits for prospective relief that

avoid the Eleventh Amendment bar, but the employee’s conduct remains state

action under the Fourteenth Amendment. 17A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur

R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4231 (3d ed. 2004); see also Home

Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Los Angeles, 227 U.S. 278, 287-88 (1913). Although the

Commissioner is an “individual,” she is acting in and was sued in her official

capacity for enforcing Arizona statutes. Whatever may be the case for § 1983

suits against sister-state officials who are sued in their individual capacity, the

Texas statute offers no obvious rationale for including nonresident individuals

sued solely in their official capacity under Ex Parte Young. Moreover, the only

other class of nonresident defined by the statute includes business entities but
No. 06-20095

5 See Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction § 7.5.1 (4th ed. 2003) (describing

Young).

6 Although the Texas Supreme Court supports an expansive construction of “doing

business,” it connects acts relevant to the long-arm statute with a “business enterprise.”

Schlobohm v. Schapiro, 784 S.W.2d 355, 357 (Tex. 1990). And a “business” is in common

usage a “commercial enterprise carried on for profit.” Black’s Law Dictionary 211 (8th ed.

2004). Arizona’s regulatory activity in no way meets this definition.

7

not fellow states. Whether the long-arm statute’s definition of nonresidents

ignores or subsumes the Ex Parte Young fiction is uncertain.

A second statutory question is whether the Commissioner’s enforcement

of Arizona regulations constitutes “doing business,” making a contract, or

committing a tort — the activities reached by the long-arm statute. The parties,

pursuing a commonly used broad analogy between § 1983 suits and torts,

characterize this suit as a tort claim. It is one thing to appropriate statutes of

limitation and damage measures from tort causes of action into § 1983;these are

practical, utilitarian decisions. It also seems normally accurate to describe as

torts, even under the long-arm statute, § 1983 suits against public officials for

individual misconduct. But the claim here is against the Commissioner in her

official capacity, the essence of Ex Parte Young.

5 The parties may casually

describe this case as a tort, even though it challenges not the Commissioner’s

abuse of power but her faithful enforcement of allegedly unconstitutional

Arizona statutes, and it seeks not damages but an injunction against the

statute’s operation. This court, however, interpreted similar official conduct as

the “business” of state regulation. See Great W. United Corp. v. Kidwell, 577

F.2d 1256, 1268 (5th Cir. 1978), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Leroy v. Great

W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173 (1979).6 These two competing approaches suggest

that only by twisting the ordinary meaning ofthe terms covered by the long-arm

statute is Arizona’s regulatory activity intended to be encompassed and

adjudicated in Texas courts.
No. 06-20095

7 See Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979) (no constitutional impediment to a suit for

damages against the State of Nevada being litigated in California court).

8 But cf. Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Antt, 20 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (S.D. Tex. 1998) (holding that

Texas court’s exercise of general jurisdiction over Florida and California state officials did not

violate due process because each state had a revenue office in Texas). 

8

By conceding the application ofthe “tort” provision of the long-arm statute,

the Commissioner relieves this court of an obligation to pursue these

interpretive questions. We preserve them for posterity, noting that while there

may be no constitutional impediment against Texas’s decision to allow its courts

to construe and perhaps overturn state officials’ enforcement of sister state

statutes,7 and while the long-arm statute is coextensive with the limits of

procedural due process for those people and entities and activities that it

describes, the legislature may not have opened the courthouse doors to include

this case.

B. Due Process

Whether or not the Texas long-arm statute encompasses extraterritorial

regulation by a nonresident state official, we hold that exercising personal

jurisdiction over the Commissioner in the Southern District of Texas would

violate due process.8 The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

prohibits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant

unless the defendant has meaningful“contacts,ties, or relations” with the forum

state. Int’l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945). Jurisdiction may be

general or specific. Where a defendant has “continuous and systematic general

business contacts” with the forum state, Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia,

S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416 (1984), the court may exercise “general”

jurisdiction over any action brought against that defendant. Id. at 415 n.9.

Where contacts are less pervasive, the court may still exercise “specific”

jurisdiction “in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant’s contacts with
No. 06-20095

9 See Burger King, 471 U.S. at 479-80 (holding that defendant “reached out” beyond

Michigan and made a contact with Florida when he negotiated a franchise contract with

Burger King, a Florida corporation). 

9

the forum.” Id. at 414 n.8. This case presents only the question of specific

jurisdiction.

The constitutional requirement for specific jurisdiction is that the

defendant has “minimum contacts” with the forum state such that imposing a

judgment would not “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial

justice.” Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316. In Nuovo Pignone, SpA v. STORMAN ASIA

M/V, 310 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2002), this court explained that the personal

jurisdiction inquiry involves a three-step analysis:

(1) whether the defendant . . . purposely directed its activities

toward the forum state or purposely availed itself of the privileges

of conducting activities there; (2) whether the plaintiff’s 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.

Id. at 378 (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 (1985)).

1. Minimum Contacts

To determine whether the Commissioner has “minimum contacts” with

Texas, we must identify some act whereby she “purposefully avail[ed] [her]self

of the privilege of conducting activities [there], thus invoking the benefits and

protections of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). The

Commissioner’s conduct must show that she “reasonably anticipate[ed] being

haled into court” in Texas. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S.

286, 297 (1980).

Here, the totality of the Commissioner’s contacts with Texas involves a

cease and desist order and correspondence with Stroman’s attorneys. Although

the Commissioner has “reached out”9to assert her authority over Stroman’s

Arizona-related business activities, she has not “purposefully availed” herself of
No. 06-20095

10 In Kulko, the Court held that California courts did not have personal jurisdiction in

a domestic-relations case over a New York father who agreed to let his daughter live in

California with her mother during the school year. Kulko, 436 U.S. at 94 (“A father who

agrees, in the interests of family harmony and his children’s preferences, to allow them to

spend more time in California than was required under a separation agreement can hardly be

said to have ‘purposefully availed himself’ of the ‘benefits and protections’ of California’s

laws.”).

10

the benefits of Texas law like someone actually “doing business” in Texas.

Hanson, 357 U.S. at 253. Stroman does not allege the Commissioner has made

any contacts with Texas apart from hypothetical contacts she may make with

other prospective timeshare vendors while attempting to assert “nationwide”

authority. Based on such minimal known contacts, the Commissioner, a

nonresident state official, could not have reasonably anticipated being haled into

federal court in Texas to defend her enforcement of the Arizona statute. WorldWide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 297.

Courts generally exercise specific jurisdiction over nonresident defendants

that are engaged in commercial, profit-oriented enterprise. In Kulko v. Superior

Court, 436 U.S. 84 (1978),10 the Supreme Court recognized that the absence of

“commercial transactions in interstate commerce”in which a defendant “sought

a commercial benefit” precluded an analogy to commercial activity cases as a

basis for assertion of personal jurisdiction. Id. at 97. The Kulko Court further

concluded that a court’s reliance on a defendant’s “having caused an ‘effect’ in

[the forum state] was misplaced” because the defendant derived no benefit from

any activities relating to the forum. Id. at 96. See also City of Va. Beach v.

Roanoke River Basin Ass’n, 776 F.2d 484, 488 (4th Cir. 1985) (holding that the

Governor of North Carolina’s participation in hearings conducted in Virginia by

the Army Corps of Engineers related to a dispute with a Virginia city was not an

invocation of benefits and protections of Virginia law sufficient to subject

governor to service under Virginia’s long-arm statute).
No. 06-20095

11

Kulko is applicable here. In the first instance, the Commissioner was not

engaged in commercial transactions to obtain a commercial benefit by acting in

a governmental capacity to enforce Arizona law. Because no such benefit

accrues to the Commissioner from her activities relating to Texas, any

jurisdiction based upon her having caused an “effect” in Texas is likewise

misplaced. Even if the State of Arizona itself — as a sovereign state, subject to

Eleventh Amendment protections — derived a benefit from any “effects” in Texas

generated by the action of the Commissioner, the benefit does not run to those

officials in their individual capacity, stripped of their sovereign immunity cloak.

Stroman cannot have it both ways under the Ex Parte Young doctrine.

Stroman argues that because this is a case involving an out-of-state

defendant’s conduct targeted to affect an in-state plaintiff, this circuit's

jurisdictional analysis is controlled by Calder’s “effects test.” See Calder v.

Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788 (1984); see also Southmark Corp. v. Life Investors, Inc.,

851 F.2d 763, 771-73 (5th Cir. 1988). Calder involved a California actress who

brought suit in California state court against two Florida employees of a tabloid

magazine and alleged she had been libeled by a story featured in their

publication. Upholding the California court’s jurisdiction over the Florida

defendants,the Supreme Court stated thatthe “effects” of their tortious conduct

were “expressly aimed” at California and that the plaintiff would feel the “brunt

of the harm” in that state. Calder, 465 U.S. at 789.

Stroman argues that Texas is a similar locus for jurisdiction because the

effects of the Commissioner’s regulatory actions are felt there. We do not agree.

Although it may be true that the Commissioner’s action against Stroman is

based upon conduct which occurred entirely in Texas, we cannot find, as

Stroman urges, thatthe Commissioner has purposefully directed her conduct at

Texas. Stroman more accurately recognizes that the Commissioner, by

proceeding with the cease and desist order, is essentially asserting nationwide
No. 06-20095

12

authority over any real estate transactions involving Arizona residents or

property.

“Effects” jurisdiction is premised on the idea that an act done outside a

state that has consequences or effects within the forum state can suffice as a

basis for personal jurisdiction if the effects are seriously harmful and were

intended or highly likely to follow from the nonresident defendant’s conduct.

Moncrief Oil Int’l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 481 F.3d 309, 314 (5th Cir. 2007). Such

jurisdiction is rare. Id. Moreover, as this court has noted, “[T]he key to Calder

is that the effects of an alleged intentional tort are to be assessed as part of the

analysis of the defendant’s relevant contacts with the forum.” Allred v. Moore

& Peterson, 117 F.3d 278, 286 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1048 (1998)

(emphasis added) (quoting Wallace v. Herron, 778 F.2d 391, 395 (7th Cir. 1985),

cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1122 (1986)). We have declined to allow jurisdiction for

even an intentional tort where the only jurisdictional basis is the alleged harm

to a Texas resident. Moncrief, supra; see also Panda Brandywine Corp. v.

Potomac Elec. Power Co., 253 F.3d 865, 870 (5th Cir. 2001). By seeking to

regulate Stroman’s activities involving Arizona residents or property, the

Commissioner is not “expressly aim[ing]” her actions at Texas. Calder, 465 U.S.

at 789. Rather, her intent is to uphold and enforce the laws of Arizona.

To illustrate, this case closely resembles United States v. Ferrara, 54 F.3d

825 (D.C. Cir. 1995). In Ferrara,the federal government sued the Chief Counsel

of the Disciplinary Board of the New Mexico Supreme Court in federal court in

the District of Columbia (“D.C.”) for injunctive relief after she charged an

assistant United States attorney (“AUSA”) with violating New Mexico’s rules of

professional conduct based on his employment-related activities in D.C. The

government, relying on Calder, argued that the federal court in D.C. had

jurisdiction because the New Mexico official’s actions would have a “direct effect”

on prosecutions in D.C., and the official created “continuing obligations” between
No. 06-20095

13

herself and D.C. due to ongoing licensing obligations. Id. at 828. The appellate

court rejected this argument, concluding that a preexisting relationship between

New Mexico and the AUSA forbade jurisdiction because the official was simply

fulfilling her duty to uphold the New Mexico Bar’s ethical standards, rather than

reaching out to affect ethical standards in D.C. Id. at 829-30.

Likewise, the Arizona licensing regulations in force when Stroman chose

to deal in Arizona timeshares and with Arizona residents preclude a finding of

personal jurisdiction in Texas. Like the New Mexico official in Ferrara, the

Commissioner is upholding professional standards for real-estate brokers in

Arizona. Moreover, the connection Stroman seeks to establish between the

Commissioner and Texas is based entirely on the unilateral actions and

decisions of Stroman, not the Commissioner. In general, “[t]he unilateral

activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant

cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State.” Hanson, 357

U.S. at 253. Here, it was Stroman who chose to market Arizona properties and

transact business with Arizona residents. Arizona is simply attempting to

uniformly apply its laws. If the court adopted the approach urged by Stroman,

we would endorse an interpretation of personal jurisdiction under which the

Commissioner — and, for that matter, any state official seeking to enforce her

state’s laws — could potentially be subjected to suit in any state where the

validity of her state’s laws were in question. We are unwilling to establish such

a broad principle.

2. Cause of Action“Arises From” Forum-related Contacts

The second criterion for constitutionally sufficient contacts is that the

underlying cause of action must “arise out of” the defendant’s contacts with the

forum state. The proper focus of the personal-jurisdiction analysis is on the

“relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” Calder, 465

U.S. at 788 (quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204 (1977)). There is no
No. 06-20095

14

question that the underlying cause of action “arises” out of the Commissioner’s

cease and desist order to Stroman in Texas. But keeping in mind the proper

focus on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation, we

observe that the Commissioner’s connection to Texas is based on Stroman’s

conduct, whose “effects” were targeted at Arizona and its citizens. It could be

said that the Commissioner was forced to come to Texas. On balance, however,

this factor weighs in favor of Stroman.

3. Reasonableness of Personal Jurisdiction

The third element ofthe due process inquiry, assessing the reasonableness

of a court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction, includes five factors: (1) the burden

upon the nonresident defendant to litigate in that forum; (2) the forum state’s

interests in the matter; (3) the plaintiff’s interest in securing relief; (4) the

interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of

controversies; and (5) the several states’ shared interest in furthering substantive social policies. See Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S.

102, 113, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 1033 (1987); Felch v. Transportes Lar-Mex SA De CV,

92 F.3d 320, 324 (5th Cir. 1996).

Allowing the Southern District of Texas to assert jurisdiction over the

Commissioner creates the possibility that the Commissioner will have to defend

her attempt to enforce Arizona laws in courts throughout the nation. When a

state defends its laws in a faraway forum, it loses the benefit of having the laws

examined by local state or federal courts — courts that have special expertise

interpreting its laws. See, e.g., Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173, 186

(1979) (“[F]ederal judges sitting in Idaho are better qualified to construe Idaho

law, and to assess the character of Idaho’s probable enforcement of that law,

than are judges sitting elsewhere.”). Conversely, although a Texas court

certainly has an interest in determining the legitimacy of Texas statutes, states

have “little interest in adjudicating disputes over other states’ statutes.” PTI,
No. 06-20095

11 See, e.g., Omaha Tribe v. Barnett, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1055 (D. Neb. 2003) (“The

fundamental sovereignty of these jurisdictions could be impinged if they are not permitted to

determine in their states whether these statutes are constitutional. . . .”); PTI Inc., 100

F. Supp. 2d at 1189 n.8 (analyzing reasonableness of exercising personal jurisdiction over

foreign state official and noting that “[t]he conflict with state sovereignty is perhaps the most

compelling factor — requiring the states to submit to California jurisdiction constitutes an

extreme impingement on state sovereignty”).

15

Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1189 n.8 (C.D. Cal. 2000). At

the same time, Arizona, as a sovereign, has a strong interest in not having an

out-of-state court evaluate the validity of its laws.11

Although Stroman has an interest in a convenient forum to pursue

litigation, especially when it alleges harm from a constitutional violation, and

Texas has an interest in providing a forum to redress the grievances of its

citizens, subjecting the Commissioner to suit in the Southern District of Texas

could lead to a multiplicity of inconsistent verdicts on a significant constitutional

issue. If, as is likely, these courts reside in different federal circuits, only the

Supreme Court could sort out the confusion. But if the cause of action is

litigated in Arizona federal court, judicial efficiency and uniformity prevail.

Important questions of federalism are present here, and thus, for this case,

“the shared interest of the several states” is the most significant reasonableness

consideration outlined by the Supreme Court. Federalism and state sovereignty

are an essential part of the constraints that due process imposes upon personal

jurisdiction. Those constraints do more than “protect[] the defendant against the

burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum”; they also “ensure that

the States through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on

them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.” World-Wide

Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 292. “The sovereignty of each State . . . implie[s] a

limitation on the sovereignty of all of its sister States — a limitation express or

implicit in both the original scheme of the Constitution and the Fourteenth

Amendment.” Id. at 293. Accordingly, “the reasonableness of asserting
No. 06-20095

12 See Leroy, 443 U.S. at 181. 

13 Leroy, 443 U.S. at 181 (pretermitting “unnecessary” decision of personal jurisdiction

where lack of venue was “clear”); but see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S.

83, 93 (1998) (holding that federal court may not, via doctrine of “hypothetical jurisdiction,”

decide cause of action before resolving whether court has Article III jurisdiction).

16

jurisdiction over [a] defendant must be assessed in the context of our federal

system of government.” Id. (citation omitted). In that way, due process “act[s]

as an instrument of interstate federalism.” Id. at 294. The effect of holding that

a federal district court in the Southern District of Texas had personal

jurisdiction over a nonresident state official would create an avenue for

challenging the validity of one state’s laws in courts located in another state.

This practice would greatly diminish the independence of the states.

In World-Wide Volkswagen,the Supreme Court cited increasing interstate

commerce to justify relaxed personal jurisdiction standards. In spite of this

conclusion, however, the Court emphasized that “we have never accepted the

proposition that state lines are irrelevant for jurisdictional purposes, nor could

we, and remain faithful to the principles of interstate federalism embodied in the

Constitution.” Id. at 293. We agree, and hold that it would be unreasonable to

subject the Commissioner to suit in the Southern District of Texas.

This analysis would be incomplete without addressing this court’s decision

in Great W. United Corp. v. Kidwell, supra, a Fifth Circuit opinion barely

mentioned in the briefs. Kidwell expressly found no due process violation in a

Texas court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over an Idaho official who sought

to enforce an Idaho corporate takeover statute against a Texas company. This

result, we conclude, has been overturned by later Supreme Court decisions.

Nevertheless, Kidwell exposes the novelty of Stroman’s maneuver in this case.

Kidwell itself was reversed by the Supreme Court on a finding of improper

venue.12 The Court expressly declined, under its then-existing precedent,13to
No. 06-20095

14 See Kidwell, 577 F.2d at 1287-92 (Godbold, J., dissenting in part, concurring in part).

17

reach the due process issues surrounding personal jurisdiction. If Kidwell’s

assumption of personal jurisdiction remained viable, this court would be bound

notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s reversal of the decision on other grounds.

See Cent. Pines Land Co. v. United States, 274 F.3d 881, 894 (5th Cir. 2001)

(stating that Fifth Circuit cases overruled on other grounds by the Supreme

Court remain binding authority). Kidwell, however, stretched the law of

minimum contacts in its own day, as a vigorous dissenting opinion explained,14

and has become irreconcilable with subsequent Supreme Court decisions whose

net result is to limit “effects”-based personal jurisdiction and insist upon tangible

minimum contacts between a defendant and the forum state.

In Kidwell, the majority concluded the “[m]inimum contacts . . . need not

arise from actual physical activity in the forum state; activities in other forums

with foreseeable effects in the forum state will suffice.” 577 F.2d at 1266-67.

Hence, Idaho officials, by purporting to enforce Idaho law against a hostile

takeover of an Idaho company by a Texas company, “foreseeably restrained” the

Texas company from carrying outits plans. Id. at 1267. The court distinguished

Kulko and minimized the significance of Hanson’s requirementthat a defendant

purposefully avail itself of the privilege of doing business in a forum state. Id.

at 1267-68. Finally, the court found a Texas court’s assumption of jurisdiction

reasonable in the due-process context because Idaho’s officials, who cast a

regulatory net for corporate transactions over the entire United States, could

fairly expect to have to defend their policy in other states, and their regulation

of Texas-based activities “provides the necessary contact[] with Texas.” Id. at

1270.

Each of the components of Kidwell has been overtaken by later decisions.

“Effects”-based jurisdiction was significantly cut back in Calder, and the
No. 06-20095

18

requirement for active minimum contacts with the forum state has been

emphasized, contrary to Kidwell, in the Supreme Court’s decision in World-Wide

Volkswagen. Finally, despite its rough justice in exposing extraterritorial

regulation by state officials to scrutiny in other affected states’ courts, the

Kidwell majority’s reasonableness analysis confuses fairness with the merits of

the case. See Kidwell, 577 F.2d at 1296 (Godbold, J., dissenting). And both

Burger King and Asahi later outlined the factors to determine whether a court’s

exercise of jurisdiction is “reasonable,” providing a more exacting test than this

court applied in Kidwell. In the absence of minimum contacts, and in the

presence of significant state sovereignty concerns, the ultimate fairness of the

forum should not turn on who ought to prevail. The more nuanced approach

toward fairness described in Burger King and Asahi is controlling.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, even ifthe Texas long-arm statute permits an assertion

of jurisdiction over the Commissioner in her official capacity, the exercise of

jurisdiction related to her dealings with Stroman would violate due process.

The district court’s judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.
No. 06-20095

19

RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge, concurring in part:

Although I concur in holding personal jurisdiction is wanting because the

requisite minimum contacts are lacking, I do not concur in the opinion’s

extensive dicta, including parts about: whether the Texas long-arm statute

applies (part A), the parties having conceded it does; state officials being sued

in their individual capacity (part B.1.), Richardson having been sued only in her

official capacity; and either whether the claim arises out of minimum contacts

(part B.2.) or the reasonableness of a court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction

(part B.3.), because, as noted, those contacts are lacking.

The opinion covers the proverbial waterfront; but, all that is required to

decide this appeal is found in a very small portion of it. No authority really need

be cited for the longstanding acknowledgment that courts, most especially

federal courts, function best, and most properly, in their assigned, limited role

when they decide an issue on its most narrow, necessary basis and do not engage

in unwarranted exploration of areas best left for when it is absolutely necessary

to venture there. E.g., Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 315-16 (2006)

(Stevens, J., concurring in part) (stating “obiter dicta – dicta that the Court now

describes as redundant if not incoherent – generated both confusion and

abdication”) (citations omitted); Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

543 U.S. 335, 351 n.12 (2005) (“Dictum settles nothing, even in the court that

utters it.”); Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 717 n.* (1992) (Stevens, J.,

concurring in the judgment) (“An easy case is especially likely to make bad law

when it is unnecessarily transformed into a hard case.”).