Michael Munson, Individually And On Behalf Of His Minor Child, Ethan Munson, And Kelly Munson v. Heniff Transportation Systems, Llc, Miller Transporters, Inc., Zschimmer & Schwartz, Inc., And Express Container Services Of Atlanta, Llc

Supreme Court of Louisiana
December 23, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
MICHAEL MUNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF HIS MINOR CHILD, ETHAN
MUNSON, AND KELLY MUNSON
VS.
HENIFF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, LLC,
MILLER TRANSPORTERS, INC.,
ZSCHIMMER & SCHWARTZ, INC., AND
EXPRESS CONTAINER SERVICES OF
ATLANTA, LLC
No. 2025-C-00857
_ _
_ _ _ _
IN
RE: Nautilus Insurance Company - Applicant Other; Applying For Writ Of
Certiorari, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Number(s) 81,558, Court
of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2025 CA 0022 and 2025 CW 0085;
_ _ _ _ _ _
December 23, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., dissents and would deny.
Crain, J., concurs.
Griffin, J., dissents and would deny.
JLW
JBM
JMG
CRC
12/23/2025 "See News Release 057 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-C-00855
c/w
No. 2025-C-00857
MICHAEL MUNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HIS
MINOR CHILD, ETHAN MUNSON, AND KELLY MUNSON
VS.
HENIFF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, LLC, MILLER
TRANSPORTERS, INC., ZSCHIMMER & SCHWARTZ, INC., AND
EXPRESS CONTAINER SERVICES OF ATLANTA, LLC
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal,
First Circuit, Parish of Iberville
PER CURIAM
The sole issue in this case is whether the trial court correctly granted defendant
Express Container Services of Atlanta, LLC’s exception of lack of personal
jurisdiction (“Express-Atlanta”). The trial court found that plaintiffs did not
establish the requisite minimum contacts with Louisiana and further found that
despite some corporate overlap between Express-Atlanta and four Louisiana limited
liability companies, plaintiffs failed to establish a “single business enterprise” that
would establish personal jurisdiction over Express -Atlanta. The court of appeal
reversed, conducting a review of 18 various fact-specific questions and finding that
Express-Atlanta is a “single business enterprise” with the Louisiana entities. Munson
v. Heniff Transp. Sys., LLC, 25-0022 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/3/25), 417 So. 3d 915.
The court of appeal applied a de novo standard of review to its analysis and
then considered the same facts and evidence the district court analyzed. Id., 25-0022
p.7-8, 417 So. 3d at 921. This was error. While the de novo standard applies to the
legal issue of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident, the trial court’s factual

finding that there was no single business enterprise between Express-Atlanta and the
Louisiana entities was subject to the manifest error standard of review. Hall v. Folger
Coffee Co. , 2003 -1734 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So. 2d 90, 99 (“[T]he manifest error
standard of review applies to all factual findings .”). See also, e.g., Grayson v. R.B.
Ammon & Assocs., In c., 99-2597 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/3/00), 778 So. 2d 1, 15, writ
denied, 00-3270 (La. 1/26/01), 782 So. 2d 1026, and writ denied, 00-3311 (La.
1/26/01), 782 S o. 2d 1027 (“Whether an affiliated group of entities constitutes a
‘single business enterprise’ is a question of fact to be decided by the trial court .”);
Sarpy v. ESAD, Inc., 2007-0347 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/19/07), 968 So. 2d 736, 739, writ
denied, 07-2056 (La. 1/11/08), 972 So. 2d 1170 (same).
For these reasons, t he court of appeal judgment is reversed. The matter is
remanded to the court of appeal to consider the case under the proper standard of
review to determine whether a court of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction
over Express-Atlanta based on the single business enterprise theory.1 If the court of
appeal does not find personal jurisdiction on that basis, the court of appeal shall
consider whether personal jurisdiction over Express -Atlanta exists under the
Louisiana Long Arm Statute, La. R.S. 13:3201(B). See de Reyes v. Marine Mgmt. &
Consulting, Ltd ., 586 So. 2d 103, 105 (La. 1991) , citing Int’l Shoe Co. v.
Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320 (1945).
REVERSED AND REMANDED

1 This Court has never ruled on the viability of this theory, and this remand is not an implied
adoption of it. This case arose before the enactment of La. R.S. 12:1705, which went into effect
on August 1, 2024, and applies prospectively only.