District Judge, E asternDistrict of Loui sian a, sittin g bydesi gn atio n. * 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50083

L AUR I E D. MCF AD I N, d /b / a T wo B a rW e s t ; S T AC YL

. MCF AD I N, d /b / a T wo B a rW e s t, P l a i n ti ffs - A p p ell a n ts

v. L Y N N G E R B E R , d/b/ a F oxy R oxy’ s, d/b/ a E t erna lP erspect i ve H an db ags; W I LL I A M G E R B E R , I I , d/b/ a Foxy Roxy’ s, d/b/ a E t er nalPer spe c t i ve Ha n d b a g s ; CONNI E GRENEM YER , D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas
Be f o r e H I GG I N B O TH A M and ST E W A R T, Ci r c uitJ ud g e s , a nd EN GE LH ARD T, * D i st ri ctJu dg e.
P A T R IC KE

. H IG G IN B O T H A M , C i rcui tJu dg e: Tod ayw e e xa m i ne a Te xa s c o ur t ’ s pe r s o nalj ur i s di c t i on ov er Co l o r ad o
r e s i de nt s Conni e G r e ne m ye ra nd Lynn and W i l l i am G e r be r . W e a gr e e w i t h t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

9, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 50083

2 di st ri ctcourtt h at t h ere i s n o j u ri sdi ct i on over C on n i e G renem yer an d d i sagree
w i t h t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s f i n di n g of

l ack of j u ri sdi ct i on over t h e G erbers. I Lau r i e a nd Stac i e M c Fadi n f i l ed s ui ti n t he W ester n D i st r i c tof Texas agai nstC onni e G r enem yer , Lynn G erber , and W i l l i am G erberII cl ai m i ng t hat G renem yer breached a sal es r epresentative ag r e e m e nta nd t hatb o t h Gre nem yer an d the G erbers sol d kn ock- of f versi on s of

t h e M cF ad i n s’ha n db ags. Th e di st ri ct
c o ur tdi s m i s s e d t he s ui tf o rw anto f

pe r s o nalj ur i s di c t i o n. Th e M c Fadi ns de si gn and m anufac t ure hand- m ade l eat her goo ds, suc h as h a n d b a gs an d lu g g a g e , un d er th e m a rk T w o B a r W est, sell i n g w h olesa l e to b r ic k -a n d -m o r ta rre ta il s to r e s . T w o B a rW e s t’s p r in c ip a l p la c e o f b u s in e s s is l ocat ed w i t h i n t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas, w h ere t h e M cF ad i n s r esi de. C on n i e G ren em ye r i s an in d ep en d en t sa l es rep rese n tati ve w h o rep rese n ts vari ou s d e sig n ers an d m an u fact u rers i n t h e R ocky M ou n t ai n regi on , w h i ch
e nc o m pa s s e s Ar i z o na, Col ora do , I da ho , M o nt ana , N e w M e xi c o , U t ah, a nd W yom i n g. G renem yer m ai n t ai n s a show room at t h e D en ver M erchan di se M art
w her e s he d i s p l a y s h e rc l i e nt s ’m e r c ha nd i s e . I n a d d i t i o n, Gr e ne m y e rb r i ngs
s am pl e s o f

t he m e r c hand i s e t o var i o us r e t ai ls t o r e s a nd whol e s al e m ar ke t s a nd show s i n her regi on . In h er bu si n ess she h as nev er t ravel ed to T exas n or does she m ai n t ai n a w ebsi t e. I n ei t her1995 or1996 , G ren em yerent er ed i nt o a s al es r epr es ent at i ve
r el at i ons hi p w i t h T w o Bar W es taf t erthe c om pany’ s f

or m ers al es r epr es ent at i ve j oi n ed G renem yer. I n 199 8, t h e M cF ad i n s ap proach ed G renem yer at t h e D en ver
m a rk et to discu ss a m ore f orm a lrep rese n tati on , rea ch i n g a w ri tten ag ree m en t. T h ey agreed t h at G renem yer w ou l d be T w o B ar W est ’ s pri m ary, i f not excl u sive, sal es r epresentative an d T w o B a r W estprovi ded G renem yer w i t h sam pl es f or he rs ho w r o o m . U nde rt he a gr e e m e nt , G renem yerr e c e i ve d a t w e l ve - pe r c e nt
c o m m i s s i o n o n a l ls al e s w i t hi n t he Roc ky M ou n t ai n r e gi o n a nd a s i x- pe r c e ntN o. 09- 50083

3 c o m m i s s i o n o n a l ls al e s o ut s i de t hatr e gi o n. Gr e n e m ye rt o o k o r de r s f r o m v ar i o us
r e t ai l e r s a the rs ho w r o o m a tt he D e nve rm ar ke ta nd o n her sa l e s t r i ps , fax i ng t he o r de r s t o Tw o BarW e s ti n Te xas. T w o BarW e s tt he n s hi ppe d t he g o o ds di rect l y t o t h e ret ai l ers. Th e retai l ers pa i d T w o B ar W est , w h i ch then m ai l ed
c om m i ss i on c hec ks t o G r enem eye ri n C ol or ado. O vert he c our se of t he t en ye ar peri od, G renem yer t ook orders for over $1, 000 , 000 of m erchan di se f

rom her D en ve r sh ow room an d sal es t ri ps i n t h e R ocky M ou n t ai n regi on . G renem yer
n ever t ook orders i n T exas an d on l y $40 , 000 of t h e orders w ere f

rom T exas ba sed
r e ta ile r s . In J a n u a r y2 0 0 8 , t h e M c F a d in s t r a v e le d t o D e n v e ra n d te r m in a te d th e ir
a gr ee m en t w i th G ren em y e r . Adisp u te aro se re ga rd i n g co m m i ssion s ow ed to G r e n e m y e r , a n d G r e n e m y e rre fu s e d to re tu r n th e T w o B a rW e s t s a m p le
m e r c hand i s e unt i lt he di s put e ha d b e e n s e t t l e d. The M c Fadi ns s ayt hatt he y do
n otow e G rene m yer add i t i on alcom m i ssi on s and t h at G renem yer ei t h er
w rongful l y possesses or w rongful l y sol d arou n d 65 0 piec es of m erchan di se. II I n 2006, Tw o Bar W es ts ol d t w o handbags t o Li nda G erbert hro ugh G r e ne m ye r . Ger be ri s t he so l e pr o pr i e t o rof F o xyR o xy ’ s , w hi c h m ar ke t s a l i ne of w om en’ s w es t er n w ear . G erberm ai nt ai ns a w ebs i t e, f oxy r oxy s. c om , t hro ugh
w hi c h s he m ar ke t s herpr o duc t s . The w e bs i t e pr o vi de s a t e l e pho ne num be ra nd
em ai ladd ress w h ere pot en t i alcust om ers m ay con t actG erber i n C ol orado, h ow ev er th e w eb sit e d oe s n ot p rov i d e a m ech a n i sm to place ord ers d i rectly. In
a d d it io n , G e r b e ra t t e n d s s h o w s w h e r e h e rp r o d u c t s c a n b e d is p la y e d . G e r b e r ’s
on l y t ri p to T exas w as not f or busi n ess pu rposes. G erber purch ased severalm ore bags fro m T w o B ar W estf or r et ai lsal e. B y 200 8, w h en the M cF ad i n s ter m i n ated G renem yer, T w o B ar W estno l on ger sol d G erber i t s produ ct s. Th e M cF ad i n s a ll e g e t h at t h i s c essat i on of bu si n ess f ol l ow ed an em ai lexcha n ge t h at l ed L au ri e M cF ad i n t o b e li e ve t h at G erberN o. 09- 50083

4 w o ul d s e l lt he Tw o BarW e s tb ag s o ve rt he i nt e r ne tr at he rt han t hr o ugh b r i c ka n d -m orta r stores
. G erb er m a i n tain s sh e cea sed bu yin g th e b a gs “du e to
n u m e r o u s p r o b le m s .” Th atm ont h, G erberand herhusband, W i l l i am G erber I I , f or m ed Ete r nal P erspect i ves L L C , a C ol orado Li m i t ed Li abil i t y C om pa n y. E t erna lP erspect i ves
m a n u fa c tu r e s a n d m a r k e ts “w e s te r n b u ffa lo h id e b a g s a n d o th e rb u ffa lo pro duct s. ” Th e bags ar e m ar ket ed t hro ugh E t er nalPer spe c t i ves ’ s w ebs i t e, Foxy R oxy’ s w ebsi t e, an d by G renem yer, w h o t h e G erbers h i red as a sal es representat i ve. Th e E t e r n a l Perspect i ves w ebsi t e ,
w w w . et erna l perspectives. com , l i ke the F oxy R oxy’ s w ebsi t e, contai n s contact i nf or m at i on f

ort he G erber s, butof fer s no m eans fora c l i entt o pur c hase t hro ugh t h e si t e. Th e E t erna l P e rs p e ctives w ebsi t e al so l i st ed G renem yer as i t s s al es
r e pr e s e nt at i ve . H o w e ver G rene m ye rm ai nt ai ns s he ha s no ts e e n t he s i t e a nd h as rec ei ved no cal l s as a resul t of t h e l i st i n g. G renem yer m ai n t ai n s t h at s al es cam e sol el y f

rom pu rchasers c on t act i n g G renem yer i n C ol orado , b y t el eph on e, em ai l , or at t h e show s. III In M arch of 200 8, Jason B rockm an , a resi den t of C ol orado an d a n ot h er i n dep en den tsal es r ep re se n t ative, broug h tpi eces of t h e E t erna lP erspect i ves
m e r c h a n d is e lin e to th e D a lla s M a r k e t C e n te rm e r c h a n d is e tr a d e s h o w in D a lla s , T e x a s . B r o c k m a n a n d G r e n e m y e rk n e w e a c h o th e rin D e n v e ra n d w o u ld
o c c a s i o n a l l ya c ta s s u b

- r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a ts h o ws t h e o t h e rd i d n o ta t t e n d

. As G r e n e my e rd o e s n o ta t t e n d t h e D a l l a s s h o w , B r o c k ma n o f f e r e d t o d i s p l a ys o me of G renem yer’ s l i n es, i n cl u di n g t h e E t erna l P erspect i ves l i n e. W h i l e G renem yer di d notpay Bro c km an ’ s cost s orpl an hi s t r i p, t he G erber s and E t er nal Pers pec t i ves c ont r ibut ed t o t he c os t s of hi s boo t h at t he sho w . U ndert hi s subrepresentat i on agreem en t , t h e m ai n representat i ve (i n t h i s c ase G ren em yer)
r ec eived a t w o- per c entov er - r i de c om m i ssi on and t he s ub- r epr es ent at i veN o. 09- 50083

Moncrie f Oil I nt ’l v. OAO Gazprom , 4 8 1 F .3 d 3 0 9 , 3 1 1 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 7). 1 Lu v N’ Care, L td., v. I nsta-Mix, I

nc. , 4 3 8F .3 d 4 6 5 , 4 6 9( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 6). 2 Id

. 3 Moncrie

f Oil I nt ’l , 48 1 F .3d at 3 11. 4 5 ( Br o c k ma n ) r e c e i v e d a t e n - p e r c e n tc o mm i s s i o n o n a n ys a l e s . A tt h e Da l l a s s h o w, Bro c km an m ad e s e ve r als al e s , t ho ugh noteno ugh t o b e pr o f i t ab l e a nd o nl y f

o ur of t h e cust om ers w ere Tex as- based

. A dd i t i on al l y, B rockm an w rote tw o orders f o rE t e r n a lP e r s p e c t i v e s h a n d b a g s f o rT e x a s - b a s e d c u s t o me r s a f t e rt h e s h o w. A l lsi x of

the orders w ere sm al lenou gh t o be consi dered “personal orders” rat h er t h an “ ac c o unt s . ” The s e o r de r s w e r e fax e d t o G r e ne m ye rw ho t he n fax e d t hem t o t h e G erbers. T h e G erbers t h en pa i d B rockm an hi s c om m i ssi on di rect l y on ce t h e G erbers reci eved pay m en tf rom t h e bu yers. IV D efen da n t s m ov e d to di sm i ss f or l ack of

persona lj u ri sdi ct i on , i m proper ven u e, an d i n suff

i ci en tser vi ce of

p roces s, or al t erna t i vel y, fora chan ge i n ven u e. The di s t r i c tc o ur t , a c c e pt i ng a m ag i s t r at e j udg e ’ s r e po r ta nd r e c om m e nda t i o n, d is m is s e d a ll cla im s fo rla c k o f p e r s o n a l ju r is d ic tio n . T h e M c F a d in s n o w a p p e a l. W e r e vi e w t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s di s m i s s alf o rl ac k o f

pe r s o nalj ur i s di c t i o n de
no vo . On a c hal l e nge t o t he c o ur t ’ s pe r s o nam j ur i s di c t i o n, a pl ai nt i f f m us tm ak e 1
o n lya p r im a fa c ie s h o w in go f th e p r e d ic a te fa c ts
. In tu r n w e “m u s t r e s o lv e a ll 2 undi s put e d fac t s s ubm i t t e d by t he pl ai nt i f f, as w e l l as al lfac t s c o nt e s t e d i n t he
a ffid a v its , in fa v o ro f ju r is d ic tio n .” 3 A fe de r alc o ur tm aye xe r c i s e pe r s o nalj ur i s di c t i on o ve ra no nr e s i de nt defenda n ti f ( 1) t h e f orum st ate’ s l on g- arm st atute confer s persona lj u ri sdi ct i on ov er th a t de fen d a n t; an d (2) th e exe rcise of p erso n a lj u ri sd i cti on com p orts w i th t h e D u e P roces s C l au se of t h e F ou rt een t h A m en dm en t
. A s t h e T exas l on g- arm 4N o. 09- 50083

I d

. at 311 n .1. 5 I d

. at 311 (c itin g In t’

l Shoe Co. v. Wash

. , 3 2 6U .S

. 3 1 0 , 3 1 6( 1 9 4 5))

. 6 Lu v N’ Care , 43 8 F .3d at 4 69 (citingHe li co pterosN

ac io n alesde C

ol u mb ia, S.A

. v. 7 Hal l , 4 6 6U .S

. 4 0 8 , 4 1 5( 1 9 8 4))

. Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atu neros, I nc. , 4 7 2 F .3 d 2 6 6( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 6). 8 I d

. at 271 (c itin g Nuov o Pignone, S pAv . S TORE

MAN A S I A M/V , 310 F.3 d 374(5th 9 C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ))

. 6 s t at ut e e xt e nds as faras co ns t i t ut i o naldue pr o c e s s a l l o w s , w e o nl y c o ns i de rt he
se c ond s t ep o f

t he i nqui r y. 5 T h e rel evan tst an da rd f or due p roces s i s r ot e: “ T h e pl ain t i f f m u stshow t hat( 1) t he de fe nda ntpur po s e f ul l y av ai l e d hi m s e l f o f t he bene f

i t s a nd pr o t e c t i o ns o f

t he f o r u m s t a t e b y e s t ab l i s hi ng ‘ m i ni m um c o nt ac t s ’w i t h t he f o r um st ate, an d ( 2) t h e exerci se of persona lj u ri sdi ct i on over t h at defen da n tdoes not
o f fe nd t r ad i t i o nal no t i o ns o f ‘ fai r pl ay and s ubs t ant i al j us t i c e . ’” “ W h ere a 6 de fe nda nt‘ has c o nt i n uo us a nd s ys t e m at i c g e ne r alb us i ne s s c o nt ac t s ’w i t h t he f o r um s t at e , t he c o ur t m ay e xe r c i s e ‘ ge ne r al j ur i s di c t i o n’o ve ra ny ac t i o n b r o ugh t
a g a in s t t h e d e fe n d a n t. W h e r e co n ta c ts a r e le s s p e r v a s iv e , th e co u r t m a ys till
e x e r c is e ‘s p e c if

ic ’ ju r is d ic t io n ‘in a s u it a r is in go u to f o rr e la t e d to th e d e fe n d a n t ’s
c o nt ac t s w i t h t he f

o r um . ’ ” The M c Fadi ns c l ai m o nl y s pe c i f i c j ur i s di c t i o n. 7 In this ci rcu i t, sp ecif i c p erso n a lj u ri sd i cti on i s a claim -spe ci fi c i n q u i ry : “A pl ai nt i f f br i ngi ng m ul t i pl e c l ai m s t hata r i s e o uto f di f fe r e ntf o r um c o nt ac t s o f

t he defen dant m ustes t abl i sh s pec i f i c j uri sdi c t i on f

orea c h cl ai m . ” W e have 8
ar t i c ul at e d a t hr e e - s t e p a nal ys i s f o rs pe c i f

i c j ur i s di c t i o n: “ ( 1) w he t h ert he d e fe n d a n t h a s m in im u m co n ta c ts w ith th e fo r u m s ta te , i.e ., w h e th e rit p u r p o s e ly di r e c t e d i t s a c t i vi t i e s t o w ar d t he f o r um s t at e o rpur po s e f ul l y av ai l e d i t s e l f

o f t he pri vi l eges of

condu ct i n g act i vi t i es t h ere; ( 2) w h et h er t h e pl ai n t i f f ’ s ca u se of
ac t i o n a r i s e s outof

orre s ul t s f

r o m t he de fe nda nt ’ s f o r um - r e l at e d c o nt ac t s ; a nd (3 ) w h e th e rth e e x e r c is e o f p e r s o n a l ju r is d ic tio n is fa ira n d re a s o n a b le .” 9N o. 09- 50083

L uv N’ C

are , 438 F.3d at 470(citing Wo rld Wide Volkswagen Cor p., v. W oodson , 44 4 10 U. S. 2 8 6 , 2 9 7( 1 9 8 0))

.

Elect rosou rce, I

nc., v. HorizonBattery Techs., L td

. , 17 6 F .3d 8 67, 871 –72 (5thC ir. 11 1999) (quot ing Bu r

ge rK ing C orp. v. Rudzewicz , 4 7 1 U .S

. 4 6 2 ( 1 9 8 5)) ; see alsoMo n cr ie f Oil In t’ l , 4 8 1 F .3 d at 3 1 2
. WienAir Alaska, I

nc., v. Brand t , 1 9 5F .3 d 2 0 8 , 2 1 5( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 9). 12 Lu v N’ Care , 4 3 8F .3 d at 4 7 3
. 13 Moncrie

f Oil I nt ’l , 4 8 1 F .3 d at 3 1 1 ; see a lso B urger K ing C orp. , 47 1 U .S. at47 8. 14 7 T h e “m in im u m c o n ta c ts ” in q u ir y is fa c t in te n s iv e a n d n o o n e e le m e n t is dec i sive; r at hert he t ouc hst one i s w het hert he def endant ’ s c onducts how s t hat i t“ r eas onabl y ant i c i pat es be i ng hal ed i nt o c our t
. ” The def endant “ m ustnotbe 10 hal e d i nt o a j ur i s di c t i o n s o l e l y as a r e s ul to f ‘ r and o m , ’‘ f

o r t ui t o us , ’o r‘ at t e nuat e d’
c o n t a c t s , o ro f t h e ‘u n il a t e r a l a c t iv it yo f a n o t h e rp a r t yo rth ir d p e r s o n .’” 11 I n de t e r m i ni ng w he t he ro rno te xe r c i s e o f j ur i s di ct i on is fai ra nd
r e as o nab l e , de fe nda nt s b e art he b ur de n o f pr oof a nd “ i ti s r ar e t o s ayt he
a s s e r tio n [o f ju r is d ic tio n ] is u n fa ira fte rm in im u m co n ta c ts h a v e b e e n s h o w n .” 12 I n t hi s i nqui r y w e e xa m i ne f i ve fac t o r s : “ ( 1) t he b ur de n o n t he no nr e s i de nt de fe nda nt , ( 2) t he f

o r um s t at e ’ s i nt e r e s t s , ( 3) t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s i nt e r e s ti n s e c ur i ng
r e l i e f, ( 4) t he i nt e r e s to f t he i nt erst at e j udi c i als ys t e m i n t he e f f i c i e nt
a d m in is tr a tio n o f ju s tic e , a n d (5 ) th e s h a r e d in te r e s t o f t h e s e v e r a l s ta te s in fu r th e r in gfu n d a m e n ta l s o c ia l p o lic ie s .” 13 V T h e M cF ad i n s al l ege t h e courtha s s peci f i c j u risd ic t i on over G renem yer
w i t h r e s pe c tt o b ot h theircont r ac ta nd t o r tc l ai m s . W e f i nd t hatt he r e i s no p e r s o n a l j u ri sd i cti on ov er G ren em ye r w i th resp ect to th e con tract cl a i m . It is cl ea rl y e stab l i sh ed tha t “ m ere l y co n tracting w i th a re siden t of the f oru m state do e s no te s t ab l i s h m i ni m um co nt ac t s . ” Jur i s di c t i o n m us tnotb e b as e d o n t he 14 f ort u i t y of

one p art y resi di n g i n the f orum st ate. Th e M cF ad i n s r el y on t h e factN o. 09- 50083

Freu densprun

g v. Offshore Techn ical Services, Inc. , 379 F.3 d 32 7 3 44 (5thC ir. 2 004) 15 (“thi s court h as re peate dlyh eld that th e combinationof mailing payments to the forum state, engaging

incommunic atio ns related to the execution and performance of th e co ntract, and the existence of a contract between the nonreside nt defen dantan d a reside nt of th e forum are in suff icie nt toe st ab li shminim u m c ontact s”). 4 9 5F .2 d 4 8 3( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 7 4). 166 8 1 F .2 d 1 0 0 3( 1 9 8 2 ). 17 8 t h at t h e contr actcreated a ten-year sal es r epresentati on rel ati on shi p betw een t h e parti es and t h at t h ere w ere s i gn i f i can tcom m u n i cat i on s— i n cl u di n g sal es o r de r s a nd c om m i s s i o n pa ym e nt s — be t w e e n Gre ne m ye ri n Col o r ad o a nd t he M cF ad i n s i n T exas. I n a dd i t i on , the M cF ad i n s poi n tt o t h e sal es by G renem yer to T ex a s reside n ts. T h ese con tacts a re ins u ff i ci en t. W e h a v e h e ld th a t c o m m u n ica tion s r e la tin gto th e p e rfo rm a n ce of a
c o nt r ac tt he m s e l ve s a r e i ns uf f i c i e ntt o es t ab l i s h m i ni m um c o nt ac t s . H e r e t he 15
c o nt r ac tw as c e nt e r e d a r o und G r e ne m ye r ’ s o pe r at i o ns out s i de Te xa s . The M cF ad i n s app roached G renem yer abou test abli shi n g t h e represen t ati on
r e l at i o ns hi p i n Col o r ad o , G r e ne m ye r ’ s s al e s r e gi o n di d no ti nc l ude Te xa s b ut exp l i ci t l y f

ocused on the R ocky M ou n t ai n st ates, an d G renem yer never tr aveled t o Te xa s t o s e l lt he M c Fadi ns ’handb ag s . The e nt i r e pur po s e o f t he a gr e e m e nt
w a s to o p e n u p m a r k e ts o u ts id e o f T e x a s to T w o B a rW e s t h a n d b a g s . T h e M cF a d in s p oi n tt o Pr o duc tPr o m o t i o ns , I nc . , v . Cous t e au and 16 Mi ssi ssi pp i Int ers t ate Express v. Tran spo, I n c. to s upportt he pr opo si t i on t hat 17
c o n tr a c tin gw ith a k n o w n T e x a s r e s id e n t is s u ffic ie n t t o e s ta b lis h ju r is d ic tio n in T ex a s. H ow ev er, th ese cas es a re d i sti n gu i sh a b l e from the in s ta n t o n e. In Pr o d u c tPr o m o t i o ns , the c our tr es t ed hea vi l y o n t he fac tt hatt he c ont r ac tw as con su m m a ted in T e x a s an d tha t T ex a s l a w w ou l d l i k ely a p p l y to th e con tract. T h e d e fe n d a n ts in Pr o duc tPr o m o t i o ns “ hadre as o n t o f o r e s e e t hate nf

o r c e m e nt
an d p rot ect i on of

i t s ow n ri gh t s u n der t h e contr actm i gh tdep en d on t h e l aw s ofN o. 09- 50083

Pro duc t Pro motio ns , 49 5 F .2d at 4 97. 18There isa stro ng argume nt thatColorad o lawwoul d app ly to th i s c o n t r act . In 19 determinin g which law to apply to multi state contracts, Texas choice of law rul es look to the factor s lis te d inRes tate me nt se ction1 8 8ino rd erto de term in e whichst ate“h a s th e mo st significant relation ship to the tran sactio n.” SonatE xp lo ra t io nC

o. , v. Cu ddP

ress u reC

on t ro l, Inc. , 27 1 S .W.3d 228 , 23 3 (Tex . 2008). I n this particul ar contract, allfactors—inclu ding th e plac e of c on t r acting , place of ne gotiation , place of performanc e, locationof the subj ect matt er—exce ptth e re si de ncy of th e Mc F a din s, point toC olor a doa s th e st atewithth e mo st si gnif ic a nt relation ship

. Trans po , 68 1 F .2d at 1 011
. 20 Id

. 21 9 Tex as . ” H e r e , ho w e ve r , t he M c Fad i n s t r av e l e d t o Col o r ad o t o e s t ab l i s h t he

18
r e p r e s e n ta tio n re la tio n s h ip a n d it a p p e a r s t h a t t h e co n tr a c t w a s fo r m e d in C o lo r a d o . L i k e w is e , G r e n e m y e r ’ s p e r fo r m a n c e o f th e co n tr a c t o c c u r r e d in

19 Col o r ad o a nd t he Roc kyM o unt ai n r e gi o n. Tran spo i s l i k ew i se ina p p osite. T h e M cF a d i n s ar gu e th a t Tran spo s t and s f o rt he pr o po s i t i o n t hata s us t ai ne d c o nt r ac t ualr e l at i o ns hi p s upp o r t s a f i ndi ng o f m i ni m alc o nt ac t s . H o w e ve r , i n Tr ans po , w e f ound t hatt he f

or um s t at e w as

“ cl earl y t h e hu b of

t h e pa rt i es’ act i vi t i es. ” T h at c ase add ress ed the contextof 20 i nt er st at e t r ucki ng, w her e t her e w as no “ c l earl oc alnexus w i t h any p a rti c ul ar j ur i s di c t i o n. ” That i s no t t he c as e he r e . D e nve r w as t he hub o f act i vi t i es. 21 G renem yer repres en t ed the M cF ad i n s pri m ari l y f rom h er s h ow room i n D en ver andw hi l e G r e ne m ye rdi d m ak e a num be rof sa l e s t r i ps , t he y w e r e t o t he Roc ky M ou n ta i n reg i on an d did n ot i n cl u d e tri p s to T ex a s. T h e li ttl e con tact w i th T exas cam e onl y f

rom the f

ort u i t y of

the pl ai n t i f

fs’res i den ce t h ere. W e t h eref ore f i n d that t h ere are i n suff i ci en tcontact s t o est abli sh p ersonalj u ri sd i ct i on over G renem yer w i t h res pect t o t h e co n tra ctcl ai m . Finding n o m i n i m u m contact s,
w e need not i n qu i re i n t o fai rness. VIN o. 09- 50083

Guidryv. U

nited States To baccoC o. , 1 8 8F .3 d 6 1 9 , 6 2 8( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 9). 22 Id

. (cit ing Calder v. Jones , 4 6 5U .S

. 7 8 3 , 7 8 9 -9 0( 1 9 8 4))

. 23 See Pro duc t Pro motio ns , 495 F. 2da t 4 92; 4A C H AR L ES AL A N WR I GH T , ARTH UR R. 24 M I LLER & E DW A R D H. C O O PER , F ED ERAL P R A C T I C E A ND P RO CED URE § 1 0 6 9 .5 (3 d ed

. 1 9 9 8).

See In dian Harbor Ins. C o. v. Valley F

orge I ns. Group , 535 F.3 d 359 , 364(5 t h Cir

. 25 200 8) (stating

th at under T ex as l aw toproveagency“evidence mu st establi sh th at the principleh as b otht her ight: (1 ) to assign the agent’ s task; and (2) to co ntrol the mean s an d details of th e process b y which the agent will acco mplish that task”). Grenemyer’s commission 10 N or i s t h ere j u ri sdi ct i on over t h e M cF ad i n s’tort c l ai m s agai n st G renem yer. “W h en a n on resi den td efen da n tcom m i t s a t ortw i t h i n t h e st ate, or an ac to ut s i de t he st at e t hatca us e s t o r t i o us i nj ur y w i t hi n t he s t at e , t hatt o r t i o us c o nduc ta m o unt s t o s uf f i c i e nt m i ni m um c o nt ac t s w i t h t he s t at e byt he de fe nda nt to con sti tu ti on a l l y p erm i t cou rts w i th i n tha t st a te, i n cl u d i n g fed era lcou r ts, t o exe r c i se per so naladj udi c at i ve j uri sdi c t i on overt he t or t feas or . ” Add i t i onal l y, 22

“ [ e ] ve n a n a c tdo ne o ut s i de t he s t at e t hat has c o ns e que nc e s o r e f fe c t s w i t hi n t he st ate w i l lsuf

f i ce as a ba si s f

or j u ri sdi ct i on i n a suit ari si n g f rom t h ose c o n s e q u e n c e s if th e e ffe c t s a r e s e r io u s lyh a r m fu l a n d w e r e in te n d e d o rh ig h ly lik e lyto fo llo w fr o m th e n o n r e s id e n t d e fe n d a n t’s co n d u c t.” 23 T h e M cF a d i n s ar gu e th a t G ren em ye r h a d su ff i ci en t m i n i m u m con tacts
w i t h T exas becau se her sales of al l eged l y i n f ri n gi n g h an db ags cau sed an i nj u ry i n Te xa s a nd t he r e w as a n a ge nc y r e l at i o ns hi p b e t w e e n Br o c km an and G r e ne m ye rt hats upp o r t s j ur i s di c t i o n b as e d o n t he s al e s i n Dal l as . W h i l e t he act i on s of

an agen tm ay establ i sh m i n i m u m contact s over a pri n ci pa l , w e agree 24
w i t h t h e di st ri ctcourtt h at t h e rel ati on shi p betw een B rockm an an d G renem yer
w i l lno t s us t ai n at t r ibut i o n t o G r e ne m ye ro f hi s a c t i o ns i n Te xa s . Br o c km an and G renem yer app are nt l y hadar e venu e shari n g agreem en tan d G renem yer l oan ed Bro c km an s am pl e s o f t he G e r be r s ’g o o ds f o rdi s pl ayi n hi s D al l as b o o t h. But G r e n e m y e rd id n o t d ir e c t B r o c k m a n to s e l l b a g s in T e x a s . S u c h co n d u c t is i ns uf f i c i e ntt o e s t ab l i s h a r e l e va nta ge nc y r e l at i o ns hi p. 25N o. 09- 50083

on sales byBrockmanis perhaps be st described as afeefo ra ll ow in g Bro ckman acce ss to Gre n emyer’scli ents
.

Wien Air Alaska, I

nc. v. Brand t , 195 F.3d 20 8, 212(5th Cir. 1 999) (expressin g conc ern 26 that to o b road a reading would subj ect a nonre sident defe ndant “toj uri sdictio n in Texas for an inte ntio naltort simply because the plaintiff’ s compl aint alle ge d in jury in Texas to T ex as reside nts regardl ess of the defen dant’s cont acts, and would have to appear in Texas todefe nd th e suitno matt erhowgro u n dl es s or frivolou s th e cl aimmayb e”). Nordoe s the arrangement with Bro ckman change this analysis. Brockmanwas not 27 actingas Grenemyer’s agent.

Revell v. L idov , 3 1 7F .3 d 4 6 7 , 4 7 2 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). 28 See Mink v. AAA

A Dev . LLC, 19 0F. 3 d 33 3 , 3 3 6 -3 7( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 9); see alsoRev el l , 31 7 29 F.3 d at47 2 (highli ghting th e factors in Mink—ide ntic al to those at issue her e—which cate goriz e th e pa ge a s p a ssive fo r j uri sdictionan alysi s p urp os es). 43 8 F .3d 4 65 (5thC ir. 2 006) 30 11 Th e M c Fadi ns al l ege t hatG r enem yer ’ s sa l e of t he G erber s’handbags has
ca u sed i nj u ryi n T ex a s an d tha t t h ese i nj u ri ou s eff ects sh ou l d be su ff

i ci en t t o e s t ab l i s h pe r s o nal j ur i s di c t i o n. I ti s t r ue t hati n G u i d ry , w e a p p l i ed the “ef fects te st” of C alder v. Jon es to to rts o u tsi d e th e lib el con tex t. H ow ev er, th e effects d octrine i s n ot a s ex p a n sive as th e M cF a d i n s a rg u e. A s w e ha ve h e ld

“ [ f ] o r e s e e ab l e i nj ur y al o ne i s notsuf f i c i e ntt o c o nfe rs pe c i f i c j ur i s di c t i o n, a bs e nt t he di r e c t i o n o f

s pe c i f i c a c t s t o w ar d t he f

o r um . ” H e r e , t h e ac t i o ns o f s e l l i ng 26 al l eged l y i n f

ri n gi n g h an db ags are not di rect ed tow ards T exas i n an y m an n er. 27 T h a t G r e n e m y e ris lis te d o n t h e G e r b e r s ’E te r n a l P e r s p e c tiv e s w e b s ite is h e r e o f n o m o m e n t. W e h a v e d i s t i n g u i s h e d “p a s s iv e ” a n d “a c tiv e ” w e b s ite s in
exam i ni ng a c l ai m ed s how i n g of m i ni m um c ont ac t s. H er e t he w ebs i t e w as 28 pa ssive, provi di n g n o m ean s f or or ders, of

feri n g on l y G renem yer’ s c on t act i n f orm ati on . W e ha ve f ou n d sim il ar w ebp ages to be i n suff i ci en tt o m eet
m i n i m u m contact s. 29 T h e M c F a d in s a ls o re s t h e a v ilyo n o u rd e c is io n in L u v N ’ C a re, Lt d. v. Inst a-Mix, I

n c. a ppl yi ng t he Supr e m e Cour t ’ s “ s t r e am of c o m m e r c e ” do c t r i ne 30N o. 09- 50083

Id

. at47 0. 31 5 8 3F .2 d 1 8 4 , 1 8 9( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 7 8). 32 12 to trad em a rk i n fri n ge m e n t c la im s . W e h e ld th a t “ [w ]h e r e a d e fe n d a n t k n o w in g ly b e n e fits fr o m th e a v a ila b ility o f a p a r tic u la rs ta te ’ s m a r k e t fo rit s p r o d u c ts , it is
on l y f i t t i n g t h at t h e defen da n t be am en able t o sui ti n t h at s t ate. ” A n d w h ere 31 a defend an tpl aces a produ cti n to t h e st ream of com m erce w i t h t h e i n t en t i on t h at i treach f

orei gn m arkets, t h e defen da n tm ay reasona bl y be h ai l ed i n t o court i n th ose foru m s for claim s a ri singou t of the pr od u ct. B u t L u v N ’ Care does n ot
con trol h ere . T h ere th e defen d a n t w a s a C olora d o dist rib u tor sell i n g p r od u cts to W a l -M a rt f

or re sa l e a rou n d the cou n try, i n cl u d i n g sixt y -fiv e o rd ers w i th i n voi ces i n di cat i n g t h at t h ey w ere t o be shipped t o L ou i si an a, t h e f orum st ate. I m po r t ant l y, t he c o ur tdi s t i ngu i s he d t he s i t uat i o n i n L u v N ’ Care fr o m th a t in C h a ria v. C iga ret t e R aci ng T eam , I n c. , wh i c h f

o u n d t h a t “ f

o u r s p o r a d i c a nd 32 i sol ated sal es di d n otest abli sh su f f i ci en tbasi s f

or j u ri sdi ct i on . ” G renem yer
r e c e i ve d, a tm o s t , a t w o - pe r c e ntc o m m i s s i o n f o rs al es by B rock m an o f t he G e r b e r s ’g o o d s . S h e d id n o t d ir e c t B r o c k m a n to g o to T e x a s , n o rd id s h e s u p p ly t he g o o ds t hatw e r e ul t i m at e l y s o l d. T h us he ri nvo l ve m e nti n t he s al e o f t he G e r be r s ’ha ndb ag s i n Te xa s c o ul d a tm o s tb e de s c r ibe d as p eri ph e r al

. Suc h a t e nuo us e c o no m i c co nne c t i o n t o t he fo r um i s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o e s t ab l i s h m i ni m um contact s. V II T h e M c F a d in s a ls o a p p e a l th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f th e irto r t c la im s ag ai ns tt he G e r be r s f o rl ac k o f

pe r s o nalj ur i s di c t i o n. W e di s ag r e e w i t h t he di st ri ctcourtan d f

i n d that t h e exerci se of persona lj u ri sdi ct i on over t h e G erbers
w ou l d n otof

fen d d u e process . A gai n w e a ppl y t he t hre e- st ep anal ys i s t o de t er m i ne s p eci f i c per so nal j ur i s di c t i o n: “ ( 1) w he t he rt he de fe nda ntha s m i ni m um c o nt ac t s w i t h t he f o r umN o. 09- 50083

Seifer thv. Helico

pte ros Atu neros, I

nc. , 472 F.3d266, 271 (5th Cir. 2006) (cit ing Nuov o 33 Pignone, S

pAv . S TORE

MAN A S I A M/V , 3 1 0F .3 d 3 7 4( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 2 ))

. See L uv N’ C

are , 43 8 F .3d at 4 70 (discussin g “stream of commerce theory”an d citing 34 World Wide VolkswagenC

orp., v. Woodson , 4 4 4U .S

. 2 8 6 , 2 9 8( 1 9 8 0))

. See Calder v. Jones , 4 6 5U .S

. 7 8 3 , 7 8 9 -9 0( 1 9 8 4). 35 Guidryv. U

nited States To baccoC o. , 1 8 8F .3 d 6 1 9 , 6 2 8( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 9). 36 13 st ate, i

. e. , w h et h er i tpu rposel y di rect ed i t s act i vi t i es t ow ard t h e f orum st ate or purpos ef

ul l y ava i l ed i t se l f

of t he pr i vi l ege s of

c onduct i ng ac t i vi t i es t her e; ( 2)
w he t he rt he pl ai nt i f f ’ s c aus e o f

act i on a r i s e s o uto f o rr e s ul t s f

r o m t he def end a n t’ s f

or um - r el at ed c ont ac t s; and ( 3) w het hert he e xer c i se of per so nal ju r is d ic tio n is fa ira n d re a s o n a b le .” 33 H e r e , th e G e r b e r s ’, t h r o u g h t h e i rr e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h B r o c k m a n , s u f f i c i e n t ly d ir e c te d th e s a le o f th e irh a n d b a g s to T e x a s s u c h th a t t h e y c o u ld re a s o n a b ly
a n tic ip a te b e in gh a l e d i n t o c o u r t t h e r e . T h e G e r b e r s h ir e d B r o c k m a n to s e ll th e ir b a g s to p r o s p e c tiv e r e ta ile r s a t th e D a lla s M a r k e t C e n te r . T o fu r th e rh is
e nde av o r s , t he y c o nt r ibut e d t o t he c o s t s o f Bro c km an’ s bo o t h a nd t he s ho w a nd agreed t o pay B rockm an a t en - percent co m m i ssi on on allsal es of t h ei r bags. M oreover, B rockm an di d in factsel lbags to bu yers att h e D al l as show (f ou r of
w h om w ere resid e n ts of T ex a s). T h i s i s n ot a ca se w h ere the cou rt i s f orce d to l o o k t o t he de fe nda nt s ’pl ac e m e ntof pr o duc t s i n t he s t r e am o f c o m m e r c e o rt he

34
e f fe c t s o f i t s a c t i o ns o ut s i de the forum st at e w i t hi n t he s t at e . H e r e , t he 35 G e r b e r s p u r p o s e fu llyd ir e c te d t h e s a le o f th e irg o o d s , th r o u g h B r o c k m a n , in Tex as , t hus a l l e ge dl y c o m m i t t i ng a t o r tt he r e w hi l e av ai l i ng t he m s e l ve s o f t he be ne f i t s o f t h e T e x a s mar k e t
. S u c h a c t i o n i s s u f f i c i e n tt o e s t a b l i s h mi ni m um contact s w i t h T exas. 36 A dd ress i n g t h e sec on d st ep, t h e t o rt clai m s ari se di rect l y f rom sal es
w i t hi n T exas . The M cF a di ns al l ege t hatt he G erber s’handbags, s ol d t hro ugh B r o c k m a n in D a lla s , in fr in g e o n th e irtr a d e m a r k s .N o. 09- 50083

Id

. 37 14 Af t e rf i ndi ng t hatt he c l ai m a r i s e s o ut o f t he m i ni m um c o nt ac t s w i t h t he f or um st at e, w e ask i f exer c i se of

j uri sdi c t i on i s fai rand r eas onabl e us i ng t he f i ve fact ors w e ha ve l i st ed. H ere Tex a s h as an i n t eresti n prot ect i n g i t s r esi den t s’ pro per t y r i ght s and pro vi di ng a c onveni entf or um f ori t s resid en t s t o r es olve t hei rdi sput es . The M c Fadi ns have an ob vi ous i n teres ti n se c uri ng r el i ef as q u ic k lya n d a s e ffic ie n tly fo r th e m s e lv e s a s p o s s ib le

. In a d d itio n , it is u n lik e ly t hatef f i c i entr es ol ut i on o f t hi s c as e w oul d be di ss er ved by r es ol ut i on i n T exas as opp osed t o C ol orado. T h e ev i den ce ati ssue i s not di f f i cul tt o t ran sportan d there
wo u l d b e n o s i g n i f

i c a n tb u r d e n o n t h e c o u r ti n h e a r i n g t h i s c a s e i n T e x a s . As we hav e s t at e d b e f

o r e , “ o nc e m i ni m um c o nt ac t s a r e e s t ab l i s he d, t he i nt e r e s t s o f t he f o r um a nd t he pl ai nt i f f j us t i f y e ve n l ar ge b ur de ns o n t he de fe nda nt
. ” The 37 ge ne r al i z e d di f

f i c ul t y i n t r av e l i ng t o T e xa s i s her e nota b ur de n v i o l at i ve o f due pr o c e s s a nd we f

i nd t hatt he co ur tm ayex e r c i s e s per s o nalj ur i s di c t i o n ov e rt he G erbers w i t h res pect t o t h e M cF ad i n s’t ortcl ai m s. W e A F F IR M in pa rt an d R E V E R S E i n pa rt; the cas e is R E M A N D E D to t h e di st ri ctcourtf

or f u rt h er proc eedi n gs.