Richard C. Bentley v. Lcm Corporation

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

14-139

RICHARD C. BENTLEY

VERSUS

LCM CORPORATION, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20112851
HONORABLE EDWARD B. BROUSSARD, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ELIZABETH A. PICKETT
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, Marc T. Amy, and Elizabeth A. Pickett,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Ed W. Bankston
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 53485
Lafayette, LA 70505
(337) 237-4223
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT:
Richard C. Bentley

Michael D. Skinner
Skinner Law Firm
P. O. Box 53146
Lafayette, LA 70505
(337) 354-3030
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE:
LCM Corporation

PICKETT, Judge.

The plaintiff, Richard C. Bentley, appeals the judgment of the trial court

granting LCM Corporation‟s (LCM) exception of lack of jurisdiction over the

person and dismissing Bentley‟s claims against LCM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Bentley hired Danny Hubbard, an employee of LCM, a Virginia corporation,

to provide expert analysis in a lawsuit against his neighbor. 1 The contract, printed

on LCM letterhead, was for a limited duration, after which Hubbard was to

produce a written report. This lawsuit arises over allegations that LCM and

Hubbard conspired with or provided information to Bentley‟s opponent in the

previous lawsuit in breach of their contract. Bentley originally filed his suit in

federal court. The federal court dismissed Bentley‟s claims for tortious breach of

contract, attorney‟s fees, reliance damages, and restitution. The federal court later

found that Bentley‟s remaining claims for breach of contract, expectation damages,

and injunctive relief could not meet the $75,000.00 amount in controversy

threshold to proceed in federal court, and the case was dismissed without

prejudice. Bentley then filed this suit in state district court against Hubbard and

LCM alleging breach of contract and that LCM negligently hired Hubbard.

Hubbard filed an answer and an exception of lack of personal jurisdiction and also

sought pauper status. 2 On October 26, 2011, LCM filed exceptions of lack of

personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, and ambiguity

and vagueness and a motion to strike for failure to comply with the provisions of
1
See Bentley v. Fanguy, 09-822, 09-1509 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/6/10), 48 So.3d 381, writ
denied, 10-2854 (La. 2/25/11), 58 So.3d 457.
2
Hubbard has filed an application for supervisory writs with this court regarding his
pauper status. See Bentley v. LMC Corp., an unpublished writ disposition bearing docket number
12-46 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/13/12 and 4/26/12).

La.R.S. 13:3205, as Bentley had filed a Motion for Default Judgment against LCM

on October 20, 2011.

A preliminary default judgment against LCM was signed in open court on

November 8, 2011. Eventually, the parties agreed to set aside the preliminary

default, and the trial court signed a judgment to that effect on March 26, 2012. The

trial court granted the exception of improper venue and transferred the case to St.

Martin Parish. Bentley appealed that decision to this court. We dismissed the

appeal as an interlocutory order and permitted Bentley to file an application for

supervisory writs. Bentley v. LCM Corp., 12-1443 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/30/13)

(unpublished). Subsequently, this court reversed the trial court, and the case

returned to Lafayette Parish. Bentley v. LCM Corp., an unpublished writ

disposition bearing docket number 13-227 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/27/13).

When the case was transferred back to Lafayette Parish, Bentley moved that

the court set a date for a jury trial, despite the pendency of LCM‟s exceptions of

lack of personal jurisdiction, ambiguity and vagueness, and failure to comply with

the requirements of La.Code Civ.P. art. 891. LCM objected. The trial court upset

the trial dates and set a hearing on the exceptions on September 3, 2013. Oral

argument was waived and the parties submitted briefs. The trial court sustained

the declinatory exception of lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the claims

against LCM with prejudice. Bentley now appeals.

Hubbard has filed a pleading in this court asking for relief from the trial

court‟s imposition of sanctions because of discourteous language used in a filing to

the court objecting to the final judgment in this matter. He has not appealed any

judgment against him in the trial court, therefore this court is without authority to

2

grant him any relief. The only issue before us is Bentley‟s appeal of the dismissal

of LCM for lack of personal jurisdiction.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Bentley asserts one assignment of error: “The trial court erred by its

judgment of no personal jurisdiction and dismissal of the lawsuit.”

DISCUSSION

A court‟s lack of in personam jurisdiction is raised by declinatory exception.

La.Code Civ.P. art. 925(A)(5). If the petition cannot be amended to cure the

grounds for the exception, the plaintiff‟s action must be dismissed. La.Code Civ.P.

art. 932. An appellate court reviews the legal determination of the trial court in

an exception of personal jurisdiction using the de novo standard. Hillman v.

Griffin, 13-648 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/13), 128 So.3d 661. Any factual findings of

the trial court, though, are reviewed under the manifest error standard of review.

Id.

“[D]ue process requires only that, in order to subject a defendant to a

judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he

have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does

not offend „traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.‟” Int’l Shoe Co.

v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158 (1945) (quoting Milliken v.

Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 343 (1940)). See also de Reyes v. Marine

Mgmt. and Consulting, Ltd., 586 So.2d 103 (La.1991). The courts have crafted a

two-prong test to determine whether a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over

a nonresident. The first part of that test is whether there is a single act or actions

by which the nonresident defendant “„purposefully avails itself of the privilege of

conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and

3

protections of its laws.‟” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105

S.Ct. 2174, 2183 (1985) (quoting hanson v. Denckla, 371 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct.

1228, 1239-40 (1958)). “Purposeful availment” means the nonresident defendant

“should reasonably anticipate being haled into court” in the forum state. Ruckstuhl

v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., 98-1126, p. 6 (La. 4/13/99), 731 So.2d 881,

885, cert. denied sub nom. Hollingsworth & Vose Co. v. Ruckstuhl, 528 U.S. 1019,

120 S.Ct. 526 (1999).

Once the plaintiff establishes minimum contacts, the reasonableness of

personal jurisdiction is presumed, and the burden shifts to the nonresident

defendant to show that the assertion of jurisdiction would be unreasonable in light

of traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. de Reyes, 586 So.2d 103.

To determine this issue of fundamental fairness, we must determine “(1) the

defendant‟s burden; (2) the forum state‟s interest; (3) the plaintiff‟s interest in

convenient and effective relief; (4) the judicial system‟s interest in efficient

resolution of controversies; and (5) the state‟s shared interest in furthering

fundamental social policies.” Ruckstuhl, 731 So.2d at 890.

The Louisiana legislature has adopted the Louisiana Long-Arm Statute,

La.R.S. 13:3201, in order to extend the jurisdiction of the courts of this state to the

full extent of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United

States Constitution. It states, 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.

(2) Contracting to supply services or things in this state.

4

(3) Causing injury or damage by an offense or quasi
offense committed through an act or omission in this
state.

(4) Causing injury or damage in this state by an offense
or quasi offense committed through an act or omission
outside of this state if he regularly does or solicits
business, or engages in any other persistent course of
conduct, or derives revenue from goods used or
consumed or services rendered 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 this case, Bentley contracted with Hubbard and LCM for litigation

support in his suit against his neighbor. Their services included a review of

documents, research of environmental statutes and codes, research of case law, and

completion of a written opinion by a certain date. The contract purported to make

the documents received from Bentley and prepared by LCM and Hubbard

“Privileged Attorney Client Work Product.” The contract includes a provision that

it is governed by Virginia law.

Bentley alleges that LCM and Hubbard breached the contract by failing to

deliver a written report. Further, he alleges that Hubbard contacted his opponent in

the underlying litigation and provided an affidavit in violation of the terms of the

confidentiality agreement. The record shows that neither Hubbard nor LCM ever

travelled to Louisiana in furtherance of the contract and that all work was done in

Virginia. The trial court found that LCM does not regularly conduct business in

Louisiana, and we find no error in that finding. Further, though one act is

sufficient for minimum contacts such that in personam jurisdiction attaches, we

find that the services provided by LCM do no indicate a “purposeful availment” of

5

the courts of this state such that LCM “should reasonably anticipate being haled

into court” in Louisiana. Ruckstuhl, 731 So.2d at 885.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court granting the declinatory exception of lack of

personal jurisdiction and dismissing Bentley‟s claims against LCM is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

6