Daniel E. Becnel, III Versus Charles Weinreis, as Owner, Eugene Weinreis, as President, and Cheyenne Ridge Outfitters and Lodge, Inc.

DANIEL E. BECNEL, III NO. 23-C-583

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES WEINREIS, AS OWNER, EUGENE COURT OF APPEAL
WEINREIS, AS PRESIDENT, AND CHEYENNE
RIDGE OUTFITTERS AND LODGE, INC. STATE OF LOUISIANA

March 12, 2024

Susan Buchholz
Chief Deputy Clerk

IN RE CHEYENNE RIDGE OUTFITTERS AND LODGE, INC., CHARLES WEINREIS, AND EUGENE WEINREIS

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE NGHANA
LEWIS, DIVISION "B", NUMBER 78704

Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson,
Stephen J. Windhorst, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

WRIT GRANTED; EXCEPTION SUSTAINED; REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS

Relators/Defendants, Charles Weinreis, Eugene Weinreis, and Cheyenne Ridge

Outfitters and Lodge, Inc., seek a review of the trial court’s November 15, 2023 denial

of their declinatory exception of lack of personal jurisdiction in favor of Plaintiff, Daniel

E. Becnel, III. They argue that they are nonresidents who do not have the required

minimum contacts with Louisiana to maintain a lawsuit in this forum. Relators contend

that maintaining Mr. Becnel’s action against them would offend traditional notions of

fair play and substantial justice.

On October 13, 2022, Mr. Becnel filed a petition for breach of contract and

damages against Relators. In the petition, Mr. Becnel asserted that Charles Weinreis is

licensed and doing business as owner of Cheyenne Ridge Outfitters and Lodge, In., in

Minatare, Nebraska; Eugene Weinreis is licensed and doing business as president of

Cheyenne Ridge Outfitters and Lodge, Inc., in Golva, North Dakota; and Cheyenne

Ridge Outfitters and Lodge, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Cheyenne Ridge”) is

licensed and doing business in Scottsbluff, Nebraska. Mr. Becnel alleged that he entered

into a renewal contract for a hunting trip with Sean Finley, the general manager, for

November 14-17, 2021 at Cheyenne Ridge. He further alleged that Defendants breached

the contract when they failed to have sufficient guides or hunts as advertised, and Mr.

Finley produced a fraudulent invoice with an inflated price and an unauthorized gratuity

amount. In opposition to the petition, Relators filed a declinatory exception of lack of

personal jurisdiction.

Before the hearing on the exception, Mr. Becnel filed an amended petition for

breach of contract. In the amended petition, Mr. Becnel added John Burrell Outfitters

and Sean Finley as defendants. He alleged that Mr. Burrell operated fishing trips in

Louisiana, and he originally booked the initial trip through Mr. Burrell. He asserted that

Mr. Burrell received payments from Relators as its agent for hunters, and Mr. Burrell

failed to ensure that the company he booked had proper hunting guides and/or leases.

Regarding Mr. Finley, Mr. Becnel alleged Mr. Finley failed to sufficiently provide

competent guides for the booked trip and produced a fraudulent receipt. He further

alleged that Mr. Finley worked in Part Eads, Louisiana for John Burrell Outfitters and

solicited customers for John Burrell Outfitters and Relators.

A hearing on the declinatory exception was held on July 26, 2023. No appearance

on behalf of Mr. Becnel was made at the hearing. In a judgment dated August 8, 2023,

the trial court sustained Defendants’ exception of lack of personal jurisdiction and

dismissed Mr. Becnel’s petition against Relators. Mr. Becnel filed a motion for a new

trial, which was granted by the trial court on October 27, 2023.

The hearing on the exception was reset for November 8, 2023. Mr. Becnel and

Relators were represented at the hearing. The minute entry states that the exceptions

were introduced into the record by Relators,1 and the matter was taken under advisement.

In its November 15, 2023 “Judgment with Reasons,” the trial court overruled

Relators’ exception. The court found that, taking the alleged facts of the original and

amended petitions as true, sufficient facts were pleaded to demonstrate Relators

“‘purposefully directed [their] activities’ as owners and officers of hunting lodges at

Plaintiff and that this litigation, which involves an alleged breach of contract, arises out

of transactions solicited from Plaintiff by these Defendants, in their capacities as owners

and officers of Cheyenne Ridge Outfitters and Lodge, Inc.” The instant writ application

followed.

La. R.S. 13:3202 reads, in pertinent part:

A. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident, who acts
directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from any one of the
following activities performed by the nonresident:
(1) Transacting any business in this state.
***
B. In addition to the provisions of Subsection A, a court of this state may
exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident on any basis consistent
with the constitution of this state and of the Constitution of the United
States.

In Kaye v. Karp, 17-397 (La. App. Cir, 12/27/17), 237 So.3d 614, 619-21, writ

denied sub nom, Kate v. Karp, 18-136 (La. 3/9/18), 237 So.3d 1193, this Court explained

the review of a declinatory exception of lack of personal jurisdiction by stating:

When reviewing a trial court’s legal ruling on a declinatory exception
of lack of personal jurisdiction, an appellate court applies a de novo
standard. Jacobsen v. Asbestos Corp., 12-655 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/30/13),
119 So.3d 770, 778. However, the trial court’s factual findings underlying
the decision are reviewed under the manifest error standard of review. Id.;
Winston v. Millaud, 05-0338 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/12/06), 930 So.2d 144, 149-
50 (noting that “jurisdiction itself is a question of law subject to de novo
review.”). Questions of law are reviewed de novo, without deference to the
legal conclusions of the trial court. Power v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,
15-796 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/26/16), 193 So.3d 471, 473.

1
Relators did not submit a copy of the November 8, 2023 transcript with their writ application.

The exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant
comports with due process when a two-part test is satisfied: first, the
defendant must have had certain “minimum contacts” with the forum state;
and second, as a result of those contacts, the maintenance of the suit would
not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Jacobsen
v. Asbestos Corp., 119 So.3d at 779. As this Court stated in that case:

The initial burden of proving sufficient minimal contacts to
establish personal jurisdiction rests with the party asserting
jurisdiction is proper. de Reyes, 586 So.2d at107; Swoboda v. Hero
Decks, 09-1303, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/31/10), 36 So.3d 994, 997
(holding that the party seeking to invoke personal jurisdiction bears
the burden of establishing such jurisdiction exists). Once sufficient
minimum contacts have been established, a presumption of
reasonableness of jurisdiction arises. de Reyes, supra. “The burden
then shifts to the opposing party to prove the assertion of jurisdiction
would be so unreasonable in light of traditional notions of fair play
and substantial justice as to overcome the presumption of
reasonableness created by the defendant’s minimum contacts with the
forum.” Id.

As to the first test of “minimum contacts”, “[o]pinions in the wake
of the pathmarking International Shoe decision have differentiated
between general or all-purpose jurisdiction, and specific or case-
linked jurisdiction.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v.
Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2851, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011)
(citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S.
408, 414, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404, nn. 8-9 (1984)).
Explaining the difference, the Supreme Court stated:

A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state
or foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all claims
against them when their affiliations with the State are so
“continuous and systematic” as to render them essentially at
home in the forum State. Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand,
depends on an “affiliation[n] between the forum and the
underlying controversy,” principally, activity or an occurrence
that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the
State’s regulation. In contrast to general, all purpose jurisdiction,
specific jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of “issues
deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that
establishes jurisdiction.”

The minimum contacts between a non-resident defendant and the
state must be based on some act by the defendant through which he
purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities within
the state and thereby invokes the benefits and protections of the state’s law.
Marchand v. Asbestos, 10-0476 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/10/10), 52 So.3d 196,
197, citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct.
154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); de Reyes v. Marine Mgt. and Consulting, supra.
The non-resident must have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of
conducting activities within the forum state such that it can be said that it
should have reasonably anticipated being haled into court there. World-

Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62
L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). The “purposeful availment” requirement ensures that
the defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of a
random, fortuitous, or attenuated contact, or by the unilateral activity of
another party or a third person. de Reyes v. Marine Mgt. and Consulting,
586 So.2d at 106. A single act of purposeful contact with the forum state
may suffice. Ruckstuhl v. Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp., 98-1126 (La.
4/13/99), 731 So.2d 881, 885, citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471
U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (19850. Where a
forum seeks to assert specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant
who has not consented to suit there, the requirement of meaningful contacts
is satisfied if the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at
residents of the forum, and the litigation results from alleged injuries that
arise out of or relate to those activities. de Reyes v. Marine Mgmt. &
Consulting, Ltd., 586 So.2d at 104.

(Internal footnote omitted).

In the instant matter, Mr. Becnel acknowledges that Relators are nonresident

defendants. Thus, we must first determine whether Relators have certain minimum

contacts with Louisiana, such that they purposefully availed themselves of the privileges

of this state. In his petitions, Mr. Becnel alleged that Mr. Burrell received payments

from Relators as its agent for hunters. While Mr. Burrell may have booked Mr. Becnel’s

initial hunting trip, the petition fails to relate Mr. Burrell with the booking of the hunting

trip at issue; thus, the petition fails to establish Relators’ minimum contact with St. John

the Baptist Parish through Mr. Burrell.

In his petitions, Mr. Becnel alleged that Mr. Finley worked in Part Eads,

Louisiana, and solicited customers for Relators. Mr. Finley’s affidavit, which was

attached to the exception of lack of personal jurisdiction introduced into evidence at the

hearing, stated that he operated and managed the Signature Lodge (located in Pierre,

South Dakota) and North Platte Outpost (located in Scottsbluff, Nebraska), which were

owned by Cheyenne Ridge. He stated that Charles and Eugene Weinreis are not

involved in the day-to-day operations of Cheyenne Ridge, and Relators do not conduct

business or seek business in Louisiana. Mr. Finley attested that Mr. Becnel contacted

him by telephone to book the hunting trip, and Mr. Becnel authorized him via emails to

charge the 50% deposit and the remaining balance to his credit card. While Mr. Becnel

alleged that Mr. Finley worked in Part Eads, Louisiana, he did not allege that the hunting

trip at issue originated from Mr. Finley’s solicitation of customers in Louisiana. Thus,

from the facts alleged, the petition fails to establish Relators’ minimum contact with St.

John the Baptist Parish through Mr. Finley.

After review, we find that Mr. Becnel’s petitions, considered on their faces, fail

to establish sufficient “minimum contacts” of Relators to the subject forum (St. John the

Baptist Parish). We find that the trial court erroneously found the petition sufficiently

pleaded that Relators “‘purposefully directed [their] activities’ as owners and officers of

hunting lodges at Plaintiff and that this litigation, which involves an alleged breach of

contract, arises out of transactions solicited from Plaintiff by these Defendants, in their

capacities as owners and officers of Cheyenne Ridge Outfitters and Lodge, Inc.” The

facts pleaded in Mr. Becnel’s petition do not show that Relators purposefully availed

themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within Louisiana, such that it can be

said that they should have reasonably anticipated being haled into court here.

Accordingly, we grant the writ application and sustain Relators’ declinatory

exception of lack of personal jurisdiction. We remand the matter to the trial court to

allow Mr. Becnel the opportunity to amend his petition to remove the grounds of the

objection, if he can. See, La. C.C.P. art. 932.2

Gretna, Louisiana, this 12th day of March, 2024.

MEJ
SJW
JJM

2
La. C.C.P. art. 932(A) states, in pertinent part, “When the grounds of the objections pleaded in the declinatory exception
may be removed by amendment of the petition or other action of plaintiff, the judgment sustaining the exception shall
order the plaintiff to remove them within the delay allowed by the court….”

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 03/12/2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

23-C-583
E-NOTIFIED
40th District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Nghana Lewis (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Kari M. Rosamond (Relator)
Paul D. Hale (Relator)

MAILED
Joseph A. Devall, Jr. (Relator) Kathryn W. Becnel (Respondent)
Attorney at Law Attorney at Law
400 Poydras Street 425 West Airline Highway
Suite 2107 Suite B
New Orleans, LA 70130 LaPlace, LA 70068

■ Complete Items 1, 2: and 3.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addmssart tn: D. Is delivery address different from Item 1?
If YES, enter delivery address below:
Kathl}ill W. Becnel
Attorney at Law
425 West Airline Hwy - Suite B
LaPlace, LA 70068
23-C-'583 03- 12-24

3. Service Type □ Priority Mall Explesa8

lllllllll llll~IIIIIIII II I I I II IIIII IIIIIII Ill □ AdultSignatue
~ultSlgnatlnRestr1cladDeftwry
tif Celtlffed Malle F.
□ Registenld Mell"'
Mall Restricted
9590 9402 2434 6249 3565 38 □ Celtlffed Mail Reetrtcted Dellvely
Mercharld~ for
......,.......,....,...,.."".""."'"---,-------------1 □ CoQecton Delivery
2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) □ Collect on Delivery Re8trlcted Deftwry □ Signature ConflrmetionTM
- ~nsured Mall □ Signature Confirmation
701b 2070 aaaa D954 8bb7 lllSUl9dMallReslrlctedDellvely
rover$500)
Restricted Delivery

PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt J

COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY

■ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse □ Agent .I
so that we can return the card to you. □ Addressee J
■ Attach this card to the back of the mallplece,
C. Date of Oellvery
or on the front if space pem,lts.
0 . Is delivery addt9ss different from Item 1? □ Yes
If YES, enter delivefy address below: □ No
Joseph A. Devall, Jr.
Attorney at Law
400 Poyd ras street - Suite
. 2 107
New Orleans, LA 70 130
23-C-583
03-12-24
3. Selvlcelype □ Pl1orlty M a l l ~

lllllll llllllllllllllIIl llIIIllll1111111111
9590 9402 2434 6249 3565 21
□ AdultSlgnan
~RNtlfctedDIIMlly
a ReQlateAld Mall"'
□ ~ 9 d Mall Restricted
0 Celtffled Mall ~ Dellvely ~ptfor
----------------~ □ Collect
a ~~ooOelively
oo Delivery Restrlcled 0e1v.y a 51gna1ure Confirmation"'
...
2. Article Number (Transfer from service label)
a 1naurec1 Mall 0 Signature Conllrm8tlon
Reeb1cted Dellvery
. 701b 2D7 □ □□ a □ □ 954 6b50 □ lnaured Mall Resbtcled Dellvery
PS Fonn 3811, July 2015 PSN 753!}-02-000-9053- --'-....i;;= =- -- ---Dom
- -estl-c_R_etum
_ _R_ece_lpt-!