# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 31 70

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Je rry Delo ne y ; Pe gg y

Delo ne y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Den ni s C ha se ; Ch as em as te r Co rp or at io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

W il li am H. Hall ack , Jr.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Defe nd an t - Ap pe ll ee

Ro na ld Nov ack , Jr.; Ju li Ann e Nov ack

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Tex ark an a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 24 , 20 18

Fi le d: Decem

be r 4, 2 01 8 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , MELLOY and STRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __PER CURI AM.

Je rry an d Peg gy Delo ne y ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s 1 gr an t of de fen da nt W ill ia m

Hall ack

, Jr .’ s m ot io n to di sm is s th e Delo ne y s’ cl ai ms a ga in st Hall ack wit ho ut

pr ejud ic e fo r la ck of p ers on al juri sd ic ti on . W e aff irm.

I. Bac kg ro un d

The Delo ne y s, res id en ts of Ark an sa s, rece iv ed $4 60 ,73 8.0 0 in Decem be r 20 10

fro m th e Uni te d St at es Dep art m en t of Agr ic ul tu re (USDA) in an ad m in is tra ti ve ci vi l
rig ht s act io n al le gi ng raci al di sc riminat io n by t h e USDA. The Delo ne y s fil ed th e

act io n pr o se , bu t th ey la te r hi red Den ni s Ch as e, a res id en t of Lou is ia na , to rep res en t

th em as a no n- la wy er ad vo cat e. The USDA req ui res th at al l award fu nd s be wire d to

an esc ro w acco un t for di sp ers al to th e cl ai m an ts

. As a res ul t, near th e co nc lu si on of

th e ci vi l rig ht s act io n, Ch as e co nt act ed Hall ack

, an at to rn ey , an d req ue st ed th at

Hall ack un de rta ke li m it ed rep res en ta ti on of Ch as e’s cl ai m a n t s a n d pl ace an y fu nd s

award ed fro m Ch as e’s USDA c as e in Hall ack ’s e sc ro w a c c o u n t. Hall ack res id es in

Lou is ia na an d is n o t li cen se d to pr act ic e la w in Ark an sa s. Hall ack is su ed an

en ga ge m en t le tt er to Ch as e on Octo be r 26

, 20 10

. The le tt e r w a s ad dr es se d on ly to

Ch as e an d p ro vi de d:

I en joy ed m eet in g y ou on Octo be r 26

, 20 10

, co nc ern in g m y fir m ’s

rep res en ta ti on of y ou r pr in ci pa l cl ai m an ts ag ai ns t th e [USDA ]. I ha ve

co m pl et ed a co nf

li ct of in te res t se arch an d de te rm in ed th at th ere are no

co nf li ct s at th is ti m e, so I can acce pt t h i s m at te r. I wil l be do in g th e fo ll owi ng to rep res en t your pri nc ip al cla im an ts :

1) Rev ie win g a nd rev is in g s et tl em en t d oc um en ts 2) Ass is ti ng pr in ci pa l cl ai m an ts in ex ecu ti on of

se tt le m en t d oc um en ts

1 The Hon or ab le Su sa n O. Hick ey , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-3) Escr owi ng an d d is bu rs in g s et tl em en t p ro ceed s

My fir m ’s en ga ge m en t is li m it ed to th e afo rem en ti on ed se rv ic es in co nn ect io n wit h se tt le m en t of y ou r pr in ci pa l c la im an ts’ c la im s ag ai ns t
th e [USDA] aris in g o ut of c iv il rig ht s d is cri m in at io n.

My fir m ’s fees are ba se d on th e am ou nt of t i me req ui red to

pr ov id e th e se rv ic es ne ed ed to co mp l et e y ou r pr in ci pa l cl ai m an ts ’

se tt le m en ts ; an d wi ll be ch arg ed at t he rat e o f $1 50 .00 pe r ho ur

.

P l e a s e ke ep m e in fo rm ed as th is m at te r pr og res se s. In th e

m ean ti m e, if y ou ha ve an y qu e s t i o n s, pl eas e cal l. Tha nk y ou fo r ch oo si ng m

y fir m to rep res en t your pri nc ip al cla im an ts in th is m at te r.

Pl s.’ Opp ’n to Def. W il li am Hall ack

, Jr .’ s Mo t. to Dis m is s, Ex. B– Lett e r of

Eng ag em en t, at 1, Delo ne y v. Ch as e , No. 15 -cv -4 10 4 (W. D. Ark

. Mar

. 3, 20 16 ), ECF

No. 1 4- 2.

W hi le th e en ga ge m en t le tt er pr ov id es fo r rev ie win g an d ex ecu ti ng se tt le m en t

do cu m en ts

, Hall ack m ai nt ai ns th at hi s on ly wor k wit h Ch as e in vo lv ed ho ld in g th e

fu nd s in es cro w. Th e Delo ne y s do no t di sp ut e th is as se rti o n

. H a l l a c k co nt en ds th at

he di d no t kn ow th e id en ti ty of an y “ pr in ci pa l cl ai m an ts ” at th e ti m e th e en ga ge m en t

le tt er was is su ed

.

The Delo ne y s al le ge th at in Aug us t 20 11

, Ch as e de frau de d th em of $1 10 ,00 0

fro m th e se tt le m en t fu nd s un de r th e gu is e of an in ve stm en t op po rtu ni ty. The Delo ne y s

cl ai m th at Hall ack d i s b u r se d th e $1 10 ,00 0 to Ch as e wit ho ut pe rfo rm in g an y

in ve st ig at io n c on cern in g t he cir cu m st an ces or p ro pr ie ty of th e d is bu rs al

.

The Delo ne y s s o ug ht to reco ve r th e se tt le m en t fu nd s by fil in g su it ag ai ns t

Ch as e an d Hall ack in th e Ci rcu i t C o u r t of Lit tl e Ri ve r Co un ty, Ark an sa s. Hall ack

m ov ed to di sm is s, arg ui ng th at th e st at e ci rcu it co ur t la ck ed pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on ov er

-3

-hi m

. In a he ari ng on th e m ot io n t o d is m is s, t he st at e ci rcu it co ur t s ta te d it s in te nt to

gr an t th e m ot io n to di sm is s. Pri or to is su an ce of an or de r of di sm is sa l, th e Delo ne y s

no n- su it ed th ei r cas e. The reaf te r, th e Delo ne y s re-f

il ed th ei r cl ai m s in fed eral di st ric t

co ur t

. Th e Delo ne y s’ co m pl ai nt al le ge d br each of co nt ract

, pr om is so ry es to pp el

,

un jus t en ric hm en t, co nv ers io n, br each of fid uc ia r y du ty, an d frau d cl ai m s ag ai ns t

Ch as e. The Delo ne y s al le ge d le ga l m al pr act ic e an d br each of fid uc ia ry du ty ag ai ns t

Hall ack

. The Delo ne y s as se rte d th at th e fed eral co ur t ha d juri sd ic ti on to he ar th e

act io n pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 13 32 be cau s e t h e a mo u nt in co nt ro ve rs y ex ceed s
$7 5,0 00 an d i s b et ween cit iz en s o f di ffer en t s ta te s.

Hall ack m ov ed to di sm is s, reas se rti ng th e arg um en ts m ad e in hi s m ot io n be fo re

th e st at e ci rcu it co ur t. He as se rte d th at th e Delo ne y s’ c om pl ai nt fai le d to st at e fact s

su pp or ti ng an ex erci se of pe rs on al juri sd ic t i o n o ve r hi m

. Sp eci fic al ly, Hall ack

cl ai m ed th at he ha s no rel ev an t co nt act s wit h th e St at e of Ark an sa s an d th at an y le ga l

wor k rel at ed to th e Delo ne y s’ fu nd s occ ur red in Lou is ia na

. Hall ack av erre d th at hi s

pe rs on al co nt act wit h th e Delo ne y s co ns is te d of a fe w p ho ne cal ls an d e-m ai ls

. Fu rth er, Hall ack m ai nt ai ne d th at th e fu nd s at is su e were he ld in es cro w in Lou is ia na

an d t ha t an y

di st rib ut io n o f th os e fu nd s was m ad e by Hall ack in Lou is ia na . Fin al ly,

Hall ack st at ed th at he pe rfo rm ed no su bs ta nt iv e le ga l wo rk ou ts id e o f Lou is ia na

.

The Delo ne y s di d no t di sp ut e Hal l a ck ’s reci ta ti on of th e fact s. In st ead

, th ey

arg ue d th at Hall ack ’s a gr eem en t to ho ld th ei r fu nd s in es cro w, a s e v i d e nc ed by t he

Octo be r 20 10 en ga ge m en t le tt er, am ou nt s to a co nt in ui ng rel at io ns hi p or ob li ga ti on

wit h Ark an sa s ci ti zen s t ha t co nf ers pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on

.

The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Hall ack ’s m ot i on to di sm is s. It co nc lu de d th at th e

Delo ne y s fai le d to sh ow th at Hall ack ha s su ffi ci en t co nt act s w i t h t h e S ta te of

Ark an sa s to es ta bl is h pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on be cau se Hall ack ’s en ga ge m en t le tt er an d

la te r co nt act s wit h th e Delo ne y s di d no t ris e to th e le ve l of a co nt in ui ng rel at io ns hi p

or ob li ga ti on wit h Ark an sa s ci ti zen s. The co ur t ack n ow le dge d the en ga ge m en t le tt er’s

-4

-refe ren ce to th e “ pr in ci pa l cl ai m an ts ,” bu t it no t e d t h a t Hall ack ne ve r sp ok e to th e

Delo ne y s ab ou t hi s le ga l se rv ic es pr io r to th e ag reem en t to ho ld th e fu nd s in es cro w.

The co ur t po in te d to Hall ack ’s ev id en ce th at he di d n o t k n ow th e id en ti ty of th e

“ pr in ci pa l cl ai m an ts ” th at Ch as e rep res en te d at th e ti m e Hall ack se nt th e en ga ge m en t

le tt er. Befo re he se nt th e en ga ge m en t le tt er, Hall ack ha d co m m un ic at ed on l y wit h

Ch as e, a Lou is ia na res id en t. And

, Hall ack se nt th e en ga ge m en t le tt er on ly to Ch as e.

The co ur t em

ph as iz ed th at th es e fact s were un di sp ut ed

. The co ur t ack no wled ge d th at

Hall ack la te r ha d a sm al l am ou nt of e-m ai l an d ph on e co nt act wit h th e Delo ne y s. Bu t

no di sp ut e ex is te d th at Hall ack co m pl et ed al l hi s wor k wit h es cro w fu nd s ex cl us iv el y

in Lou is ia na

. Bas ed on th es e fact s, th e co ur t fo un d th at Hall ack di d no t pu rp os efu ll y

di rect an y act io ns to ward th e fo ru m st at e. Acco rd in gl y , th e co ur t di sm is se d th e cl ai m s

ag ai ns t Hal la ck wit ho ut pre jud ic e fo r la ck

of p ers on al juri sd ic ti on

.

II. Dis cu ss io n

On ap pe al

, th e Delo ne y s arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng Hall ack ’s

m ot io n to di sm is s ba s e d o n l a c k of pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on

. The y as se rt th at Hall ack

crea te d co nt in ui ng ob li ga ti on s wit h th em ( A r k a ns as res id en ts ) by pu rp os efu ll y

un de rta ki ng to rep res en t Ch as e’s “ pr in ci pa l cl ai m an ts .” Acco rd in g to th e Delo ne y s,

Hall ack ’s fai lu re to le arn th ei r id en ti ti es an d lo cat io n do es no t ab so lv e hi m of

res po ns ib il it y

for hi s ac ti on s.

“ W e rev ie w pe rs on al -juri sd ic ti on is su es de no vo .” K-V Pha rm. Co

. v. J. Uri ac h

& C I A, S.A.

, 64 8 F.3 d 58 8, 59 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). “ W he n pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on is

ch al le ng ed by a de fen da nt

, th e pl ai nt iff be ars th e bu rd en to sh ow th at juri sd ic ti on

ex is ts .” Fas tp at h, In c. v. Arb el a Tech s. Co rp

. , 76 0 F.3 d 81 6, 82 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). To

de feat a de fen da nt ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s fo r la ck of p ers on al juri sd ic ti on ,

a pl ai nt iff m

us t m ak e a pr im a faci e sh owi ng th a t p e rs on al juri sd ic ti on

ex is ts

, whi ch is acco m

pl is he d by p le ad in g su f

f i c ie nt fact s to su pp or t a

reas on ab le in fere nc e th at th e de fen da nt can be su bjec te d to juri sd ic ti on

-5

-wit hi n th e st at e. Alt ho ug h th e ev id en ti ary sh owi ng req ui red at th e pr im a

faci e st ag e is m in im al

, th e sh owi ng m us t be te st ed

, no t by th e pl ead in gs al on e, bu t by th e affi da vi ts an d ex hi bi ts su pp o r t i n g or op po si ng th e

m ot io n. W e m

us t vi ew th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m o s t f av or ab le to th e pl ai nt iff an d res ol ve al l fact ua l co nf li ct s in it s fav or in de ci di ng whe th er th e p la in ti ff m ad e th e req ui si te sh owi ng

.

K-V Pha rm. Co

. , 64 8 F .3d at 5 91 –9 2 (c le an ed up ).

“ Pers on al juri sd ic ti on in a di ve rs it y cas e ex is ts ‘onl y to th e ex te nt pe rm it te d by

th e lo ng -arm st at ut e of th e f o r u m s t a t e a nd by t he Due Pro ces s Cl au se .’ ” Id

. at 59 2
(q uo ti ng Dever v. H

e n tz en Co at in gs
, In c. , 38 0 F.3 d 10 70

, 10 73 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 )).

A rk an sa s’s lo ng -arm st at ut e pr ov id es th at “ [t]he co ur ts of th is st at e s h a l l h a v e

pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on of al l pe rs on s, an d al l cau se s of act io n or cl ai m s fo r rel ie f, to th e

m ax im um e x t e n t p e rm it te d by th e du e pr oc es s of la w cl au se of th e Fo ur te en th

Am en dm en t o f th e Uni te d S ta te s C on st it ut io n.” Ark. Co de Ann

. § 16 -4 -1 01 (B). As

a res ul t, Arkan sa s law pro vi de s t ha t “ th e ex erci se of p ers on al juri sd ic ti on is li m it ed

on ly by fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al la w.” Y an mar Co

. v. Sl at er , 38 6 S.W .3d 43 9, 44 3 (Ark

. 20 12 ).

To co m

po rt wit h du e pr oc es s, “ th e d e f e n d a nt [m

us t] pu rp os efu ll y es ta bl is h

‘ m in im um co nt act s’ i n th e fo ru m st at e su ch th at as se rti ng pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on an d

m ai nta ini ng the la

wsu it ag ai ns t th e de fen da nt do es no t of fen d ‘trad it io na l co nc ep ti on s

of fai r pl ay an d su bs ta nt ia l jus t i c e

. ’” K -V Pha rm. Co

. , 64 8 F.3 d at 59 2 (q uo ti ng

Bur ge r Ki ng Co rp

. v

. Ru d

z e wi cz , 47 1 U.S. 46 2, 46 4, 47 4– 77 (1 98 5) ). Due pr oc es s

req ui res th at th e de fen d a n t “h a v e en ga ge d in ‘som e act by whi ch th e de fen da nt

pu rp os efu ll y av ai ls it se lf of th e pr iv il eg e of co nd uc ti ng ac t i v i ti es wit hi n th e fo ru m

St at e, th us in vo ki ng th e be ne fit s an d pr ot ec t i o n s o f it s la ws.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Bur ge r

Ki ng Co rp

. , 47 1 U.S. at 47 5)

. “ [T]he de fen da nt ’s su it -rel at ed co nd uc t m us t cr eat e a

su bs ta nt ia l co nn ec t i o n w i t h th e fo ru m St at e.” W al de n v. Fio re , 57 1 U.S. 27 7, 28 4
(2 01 4)

. The de fen da nt ’s rel at io ns hi p wit h th e fo ru m st at e “ m us t ari se ou t of co nt act s

-6

-th at th e ‘defen da nt hi mse lf ’ crea te s wit h th e fo ru m St at e.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Bur ge r Kin g

Co rp

. , 47 1 U.S. at 74 5)

. “ [C]on ta ct s be twee n th e pl ai nt iff (o r th ird pa rti es ) an d th e

fo ru m St at e” do no t “ sa ti sf y th e de fen da nt -fo cu se d ‘m in im um co nt act s’ in qu iry.” Id

.

“ The de fen da nt ’s co nt act s wit h th e fo ru m m us t th us be m or e th an ‘rand om , fo rtu it ou s,

or att en ua te d,’ and m

us t pe rm it th e de fen da nt to ‘reaso na bl y an ti ci pa te be in g ha le d

in to co ur t th ere.’” Cr ea ti ve Ca ll in g S ol s., In c. v. LF Bea ut

y Lt d.

, 79 9 F.3d 97 5, 98 0
(8 th Cir . 20 15 ) (q uo ti ng Bur ge r K in g C or p. , 47 1 U.S. at 47 4– 75 ).

W e h av e id en ti fie d fi ve fact or s a c ou rt m us t co ns id er

in de te rm in in g whet he r su ffi ci en t m in im um co nt act s ex is t for pers on al juri sd ic ti on : (1 ) th e na tu re an d qu al it y of th e c o n t a c t s wit h th e fo ru m

st at e; (2 ) th e qu an ti ty of th e co nt act s; (3 ) th e rel at io ns hi p of th e cau se of

act io n to th e co nt act s; (4 ) th e in te res t o f th e fo ru m st at e in pro vi di ng a fo ru m fo r it s res id en ts ; an d (5 ) th e co nv en ie nc e or in co nv en ie nc e to th e

pa rti es

. Alt ho u g h t h e f

irs t th ree fact or s are pr im ary fact or s, an d th e

rem ai ni ng two are se co nd ary fact or s, we lo ok at al l of th e fact or s an d th e

to ta li ty of th e ci r cu m st an ces in de ci di ng whe th er pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on

ex is ts

.

K-V Pha rm. Co

. , 64 8 F .3d at 5 92 –9 3 (c le an ed up ).

Pri or to an al y zi ng “ th e fiv e fact or s set fo rth ab ov e, we fir st tu rn to th e ro le of

co nt ract s in th e pe rs on al -juri sd ic ti on an al y si s. A co nt ract be twee n a pl ai nt iff an d an

ou t-o f

- s t at e de fen da nt is no t su ffi ci en t in an d of it se lf to es ta bl is h pe rs on al
juri sd ic ti on ov er t he de fen da nt in th e p la in ti ff’s fo ru m st at e.” Id

. at 5 93 . W e ap pl y

a hi gh ly real is ti c ap pr oa ch th at r e c o gn iz es th at a co nt ract is or di na ril y b u t an in te rm ed ia te st ep se rv in g to ti e up pr io r bu si ne ss ne go ti at io ns wit h fu tu re co ns eq ue nc es whi ch th em se lv e s a re th e real ob ject of th e bu si ne ss tra ns act io n. It is t h e se fact or s— pr io r ne go ti at io ns an d

co nt em pl at ed fu tu re co ns eq ue nc es , al on g wit h th e te rm s of th e co nt ract

-7

-a n d t h e pa rti es ’ act ua l co ur se of de al in g— th at m us t be ev al ua te d in
de te rm in in g whe th er th e de fen da nt pu rp os efu ll y est ab li sh ed m in im

um

co nt act s wi th in th e fo ru m

.

Id

. (cl ean ed up ).

The Su pr em e Co ur t h as ex pl ai ne d t ha t

whe re th e de fen da nt de li be rat el y ha s en ga ge d in si gn ifi c a n t a c ti vi ti es wit hi n a St at e or ha s crea te d co nt in ui ng ob li ga ti on s be twee n hi m se lf an d

res id en ts of th e fo ru m , he m an ife st ly ha s av ai le d hi m se lf of th e pr iv il eg e of co nd uc ti ng bu si ne ss th ere, an d be cau se hi s act iv it ie s are sh ie ld ed by

th e be ne fit s an d pr ot ect io ns of th e fo ru m ’s la ws it is pr es um pt iv el y no t

un reas on ab le to req ui re hi m to su bm it to th e bu rd en s of li ti ga ti on in th at
fo ru m as we ll

.

Bur ge r Ki ng C

o r p

. , 47 1 U.S. at 47 5– 76 (cl ean ed up ). Bu t “ te le ph on e cal ls

, writ te n

co m m un ic at io ns , an d ev en wire -tr an sf ers t o a n d fro m a fo ru m st at e do no t crea te

s u ffi ci en t co nt act s to co m po rt wit h du e pr oc es s su ch th at a [d efen da nt ] co ul d

‘reaso na bl y an ti ci pa te be in g ha le d in to co ur t th ere.’” Eag le Tech

. v. Exp an de r

Ameri ca s, In c. , 78 3 F.3 d 1 1 3 1

, 11 37 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (q uo ti ng Via sy st ems
, In c. v.

EBM–Pa ps t S t. Geo rg en GmbH & Co ., KG , 64 6 F .3d 58 9, 5 94 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) ).

App lying ou r fiv e-fa ct or te st an d rel ev an t ca s e la w, we co nc lu de th at th e

di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in di sm is si ng th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t Hall ack fo r la ck of pe rs on al
juri sd ic ti on

. Fi rs t, th e na tu re an d qu al it y of Hall ack ’s co nt act s wi th Ark an sa s fav or

Hall ack

. Hall ack res id es in Lou is ia na , is li cen se d to pr act ic e la w in Lou i s i a na , an d

is no t an d ha s ne ve r b e e n l i c e n s e d to pr act ic e la w in Ark an sa s. 2 Hall ack own s no

2 Se e Mar ch an t v. Peep le s , 62 3 S.W .2d 52 3, 52 5 (Ark

. 19 81 ) (“ It wou ld st rai n [Ark an sa s’s lo ng -arm st at ut e] to sa y th at [a Tex as at to rn ey ] was tra ns act in g bu si ne ss in Ark an sa s. He was hi red in Tex as to wor k in Tex as

. He ne ve r cam e to Ark an sa s an d

-8

-pr op ert y in Ark an sa s, no r do es he h a v e a b r a n ch of fic e lo cat ed in Ark an sa s.

Add it io na ll y , Hall ack ha s no em pl oyees in Ark an sa s an d h a s n e v e r en ga ge d in

ad ve rti si ng le ga l (o r ot he r se rv ic es ) in Ark an sa s. Hall ack ne ve r tra ve le d to Ark an sa s

or pe rs on al ly co nd uc te d act iv it ie s in Ar k a n s a s

. He ha s ne ve r be en qu al ifi ed to do

bu si ne ss in Arka ns as or h ad an ag en t fo r se rv ic e o f pr oc es s i n Ark an sa s

. 3

Fu rth erm or e, Hall ack pr e p a r ed th e en ga ge m en t le tt er in Lou is ia na an d

a d d r e s se d it to Ch as e, a Lou is ia na res id en t. The en ga ge m en t le tt er m en ti on ed o n l y

“ pr in ci pa l cl ai m an ts ” an d ne ve r refe rred to th e Delo n e ys o r Ark an sa s sp eci fic al ly.

The le tt er was no t ad dr es se d to th e Delo ne y s. The fu nd s th at Hall ack he ld in es cro w

were in Lou is ia na , n o t A r k a ns as

. Hall ack m ad e di st rib ut io ns of th os e fu nd s fro m

Lou is ia na , no t Ark an sa s. Hall ac k ’s l e g a l se rv ic es were ren de red in Lou is ia na , no t

Ark an sa s. Se e Eag le Tech

. , 78 3 F.3 d at 11 37

. Any co m m un ic at io n, vi a te le ph on e or

e-m ai l, th at Hall ack ha d wit h th e Delo ne y s oc cu rred whi le Hall ack r e mai n e d in

Lou is ia na

. Se e, e.g

. , Por te r v. Bera ll

, 29 3 F.3 d 10 73

, 10 76 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (“ Co nt act
by ph on e or m ai l is in su ffi ci en t to jus ti fy ex erci se of pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on un de r th e

du e p ro ces s cl au se .”).

Seco nd

, th e qu an ti ty of Hall ack ’s co nt act s wit h Ark an sa s al so fav or s Hall ack

. The Delo ne y s do no t ch al le ng e th e di st ric t co ur t’s ch arac te riz at io n th at Hall ack ha d

of fere d no se rv ic es he re. T he ne gl ig en t act co m pl ai ne d of was fai li ng to fil e a pl ead in g i n Tex as .”).

3 Se e Aus ta d Co

. v. Pen ni e & Edmo nd s , 82 3 F.2 d 22 3, 22 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 87 ) (“ W hi le we do no t di sp ut e Aus ta d’s cl ai m th at an at to rn ey -cl ie nt rel at io ns hi p ex is te d
be twee n Aus ta d an d Pen ni e & Edm on ds

, we do no t be li ev e th at Pen ni e & Edm on ds

ha d su ffi ci en t con ta ct s with So ut h Dako ta to co nf er pers on al juri sd ic ti on

. Pen ni e &
Ed m on ds do es no t m ai nt ai n an of fic e in So ut h Dak ot a no r do an y of it s at to rn ey s

res id e th ere or m ai nt ai n a li cen se to pr act ic e la w th ere. Pen ni e & Edm on ds ha s ne ve r ad ve rti se d or so li ci te d bu si ne ss in So ut h Dak ot a. Fu rth er, Pen ni e & Edm on ds di d no t

act iv el y see k o ut Aus ta d a s a c li en t.”)

.

-9

-on ly a sm al l am ou nt of e-m ai l an d ph on e co nt act wit h th e Delo ne y s aft er se nd in g th e

en ga ge m en t le tt er to Ch as e. As po in te d ou t ab ov e, th e en ga ge m en t le tt er was

ad dr es se d t o C ha se , no t t o t he Delo ne y s.

Thi rd

, th e rel at io ns hi p of th e Delo ne y s’ cau se of act io n (le ga l m al pr act ic e an d

br each of fid uc ia ry du ty) to Hall ack ’s co nt act s wit h Ark an s a s w e i g h s in Hall ack ’s

fav or

. The Delo ne y s’ le ga l act io n rel at es to Hall ack ’s en ga ge m en t le tt er wit h Ch as e. Aga in

, th is en ga ge m en t le tt er was no t ad dr es se d to th em , no r was it writ te n in

Ark an sa s. It was a dd res se d t o a Lou is ia na res id en t (C ha se ) in Lou is ia na

.

Fi na ll y , it wou ld be hi gh ly i nc on ve ni en t fo r Hall ack to be ha le d i nt o c ou rt i n

Ark an sa s gi ve n th at he was ne ve r p h ys i cal ly p res en t in Ark an sa s du rin g th e ev en ts

th at ga ve ris e to th e p res en t s ui t.

III. Co nc lu si on

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-