McGuire et al v. B. Braun Medical Inc., et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHANNON MCGUIRE AND SUSAN
MCGUIRE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-393
B. BRAUN MEDICAL INC., B.
BRAUN INTERVENTIONAL
SYSTEMS, INC., B. BRAUN
MEDICAL
SECTION “R” (1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is an opposed 1 motion to dismiss under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) filed by defendant B. Braun Medical
(“Braun France”). 2 	For the following reasons, the Court grants the
motion to dismiss.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On February 26, 2025, plaintiffs brought this Louisiana products
liability case involving the Braun VenaTech LP, an inferior vena cava
filter, 3 against B. Braun Medical Inc. (“BMI”), B. Braun Interventional
Systems Inc., (“BIS”), and Braun France. BIS and BMI each distributed
1 	R. Doc. 37.
2 	R. Doc. 32.
3 	R. Doc. 1.
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 52 Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 15

2
the VenaTech LP throughout the United States. 4 	Braun France is a
French corporation that manufactures the VenaTech LP. 5 	Defendant
Braun France now moves to dismiss the claims against it for lack of
personal jurisdiction. 6 Braun France asserts that it is subject to neither
general nor specific jurisdiction in Louisiana. 7 	Plaintiffs oppose the
motion. 8
The Court considers the motion below.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Personal jurisdiction “is an essential element of the jurisdiction of
a 	district 	court, 	without 	which 	it 	is 	powerless 	to 	proceed 	to 	an
adjudication.” 	Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584
(1999) (internal citation omitted). 	When a nonresident defendant
moves the court to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule
12(b)(2), 	the 	plaintiff 	bears 	the 	burden 	to 	show 	that 	personal
jurisdiction exists. 	Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F. 2d 1185, 1192 (5th Cir.
4 	R. Doc. 43 at ¶¶ 2, 3; R. Doc. 32-3 at ¶¶ 17-18.
5 	R. Doc. 43 at ¶ 4; R. Doc. 32-3 at ¶ 17.
6 	R. Doc. 36.
7 	Id.
8 	R. Doc. 37.
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 52 Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 15

3
1985). When the court rules on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction without holding an evidentiary hearing, as in the present
case, the nonmoving party need only make a prima facie showing of
jurisdiction. Godhra v. United States Tobacco Co., Inc., 188 F. 3d 619,
625 (5th Cir. 1999). 	The allegations of the complaint, except as
controverted by opposing affidavits, must be taken as true, and all
conflicts in the facts must be resolved in favor of plaintiffs. Johnston v.
Multidata Sys. Int’l Corp., 523 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2008).
A court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if
(1) the forum state’s long-arm statute confers personal jurisdiction over
that 	defendant, 	and 	(2) 	the 	forum 	state’s 	exercise 	of 	jurisdiction
complies with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 2002). Because Louisiana’s
long-arm statute, La. R.S. § 13:3201, et seq., extends jurisdiction to the
full limits of due process, the Court’s focus is solely on whether the
exercise of its jurisdiction in this case satisfies federal due process
requirements. 	Dickson Marine Inc. v. Panalpina, Inc., 179 F. 3d 331,
336 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing La. R.S. § 13:3201(B)).
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 52 Filed 11/18/25 Page 3 of 15

4
The exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant
satisfies due process when (1) the defendant has purposefully availed
itself of the benefits and protections of the forum state by establishing
“minimum 	contacts” 	with 	that 	state, 	and 	(2) 	exercising 	personal
jurisdiction over the defendant does not offend “traditional notions of
fair play and substantial justice.” Revell, 317 F.3d at 470 (quoting Mink
v. AAAA Dev. LLC, 190 F.3d 333, 336 (5th Cir. 1999)).
There are two ways to establish minimum contacts: specific
jurisdiction and general jurisdiction. Freudensprung v. Offshore Tech.
Servs., Inc., 379 F.3d 327, 343 (5th Cir. 2004). General jurisdiction will
attach, even if the act or transaction sued upon is unrelated to the
defendant’s contacts with the forum state, if the defendant has engaged
in 	“continuous 	and 	systematic” 	activities 	in 	the 	forum 	state.
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415
(1984). 	Contacts between a defendant and the forum state must be
“extensive” to satisfy the “continuous and systematic” test. Submersible
Sys., Inc. v. Perforadora Cent., S.A. de C.V., 249 F.3d 413, 419 (5th Cir.
2001).
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 52 Filed 11/18/25 Page 4 of 15

5
Specific jurisdiction exists when a nonresident defendant “has
purposefully directed its activities at the forum state and the litigation
results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities.”
Panda Brandywine Corp. v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 253 F.3d 865,
868 (5th Cir. 2001). Minimum contacts may be established by actions,
or even just a single act, by the nonresident defendant that “purposefully
avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum
state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” 	Burger
King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985).
When the cause of action relates to the defendant’s purposeful
contact with the forum, the “minimum contacts” requirement is met.
Bearry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 818 F.2d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 1987)
(Specific jurisdiction is proper as long as defendant’s contact resulted
from its “purposeful conduct and not the unilateral activity of the
plaintiff.”); see also Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). This
restriction on the minimum contacts inquiry ensures that the defendant
“purposefully availed” itself of the benefits of the forum state such that
it could “reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” 	Alpine
View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 52 Filed 11/18/25 Page 5 of 15

6
quotations omitted) (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474); see also
Bearry, 818 F. 2d at 375.
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	General Personal Jurisdiction
Plaintiffs’ complaint does not allege a prima facie case of general
personal 	jurisdiction. 	To 	establish 	general 	personal 	jurisdiction,
plaintiffs must show “continuous and systematic” contacts with the
forum such that Braun France is “essentially at home” there. Goodyear
Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011).
Plaintiffs have not alleged such contacts. 	The Fifth Circuit has stated
that it is “incredibly difficult to establish general jurisdiction in a forum
other than the place of incorporation or principal place of business.”
Frank v. P N K (Lake Charles) L.L.C., 947 F.3d 331, 336 (5th Cir. 2020)
(quoting Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Ritter, 768 F.3d 429, 432 (5th Cir.
2014)). Here, plaintiffs state that Braun France is a French corporation
that 	has 	“engaged 	in 	business 	in 	the 	United 	States 	including
Louisiana.” 9 Specifically, plaintiffs allege that Braun France “designed,
9 	R. Doc. 43 at ¶ 2; R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 4.
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 52 Filed 11/18/25 Page 6 of 15

7
set 	specifications 	for, 	manufactured, 	prepared, 	compounded,
assembled, processed, marketed, distributed, and/or sold” the Braun
VenaTech LP to be used in patients throughout the United States. 10
These 	allegations 	are 	insufficient 	to 	establish 	general 	personal
jurisdiction. Plaintiff simply alleges that defendant produced and sold
a product for distribution in the United States, including Louisiana.
This is a far cry from facts that establish that defendant is “at home” in
Louisiana. Accordingly, Braun France is not subject to general personal
jurisdiction in Louisiana.
B. 	Specific Personal Jurisdiction
The Court finds that Braun France is not subject to specific
personal jurisdiction. 	Because the Louisiana Long Arm Statute is
coextensive with constitutional due process, the Court’s focus is solely
on whether the exercise of its jurisdiction in this case satisfies federal
due process requirements. Dickson Marine Inc., 179 F. 3d at 336. The
exercise of personal jurisdiction is consistent with due process when:
“(1) the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the benefits and
protections of the forum state by establishing ‘minimum contacts’ with
10 	R. Doc. 43 at ¶ 4; R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 4.
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 52 Filed 11/18/25 Page 7 of 15

8
that state; and (2) the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend
‘traditional 	notions 	of 	fair 	play 	and 	substantial 	justice.’” 	Choice
Healthcare, Inc. v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of Colo., 615 F.3d 364,
367 (5th Cir. 2010). 	Further, the litigation must arise out of the
defendant’s contacts with the forum state. 	Helicopteros, 466 U.S., at
414.
Plaintiffs allege that there is personal jurisdiction over Braun
France based on its role in designing, manufacturing, and supplying an
allegedly defective medical device for distribution in the United States,
including Louisiana. Additionally, plaintiffs contend that Braun France
is 	a 	“parent, 	subsidiary, 	division, 	affiliate, 	or 	sister 	company” 	of
defendants BMI and BIS. 11 	Plaintiffs also argue that Braun France
provided 	“support 	services” 	in 	Louisiana 	by 	providing 	contact
information in a handout that was provided to Shannon McGuire. 12
Braun France submits a declaration of Christelle Garier-Reboul,
President of Braun France, attesting that it is a separate legal entity from
defendants BIS and BMI, and that it does not have a parent or subsidiary
11 	R. Doc. 43 at ¶ 4; R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 4.
12 	R. Doc. 37 at 7.
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 52 Filed 11/18/25 Page 8 of 15

9
corporate relationship with BIS or BMI. 13 	It further declares that BIS
distributes the VenaTech LP under a distributorship agreement between
Braun 	France 	and 	BIS. 14 	Braun 	France 	attests 	that 	under 	the
distributorship agreement Braun France has no involvement in the
distribution 	of 	VenaTech 	LPs’ 	after 	BIS 	purchases 	the 	devices. 15
Specifically, Braun France attests that it cannot “instruct or direct BIS
to distribute or sell the VenaTech LP to specific hospitals and healthcare
providers, or within certain geographical locations.”16 Moreover, Braun
France 	declares 	that 	it 	did 	not 	design, 	manufacture, 	or 	test 	the
VenaTech LP in Louisiana, that it does not advertise or solicit business
in Louisiana, and that it does not render services in Louisiana. 17
The minimum contacts requirement is met under the “stream of
commerce” theory so long as “the defendant delivered the product into
the stream of commerce with the expectation that it would be purchased
by or used by consumers in the forum state.” 	Ainsworth v. Moffett
Eng’g Ltd., 716 F.3d 174, 177 (5th Cir. 2013). The stream of commerce
13 	R. Doc. 32-3 at ¶¶ 23, 25.
14 	Id. at ¶ 17.
15 	Id. at ¶ 20.
16 	Id.
17 	Id. at ¶¶ 10, 12-13.
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 52 Filed 11/18/25 Page 9 of 15

10
theory usually involves a nonresident defendant, that while acting
outside the forum, places in the stream of commerce a product that
ultimately causes harm inside the forum. 	Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 926.
In 	the 	Fifth 	Circuit, 	“mere 	foreseeability 	or 	awareness 	[is] 	a
constitutionally 	sufficient 	basis 	for 	personal 	jurisdiction 	if 	the
defendant’s product made its way into the forum state while still in the
stream of commerce.” 	Ainsworth, 716 F.3d at 177; see also Zoch v.
Magna Seating (Germany) GmbH, 810 F. App’x 285, 290 (5th Cir.
2020). But see Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102
(1987). But the defendant’s contacts must still be “more than ‘random,
fortuitous, or attenuated, or of the unilateral activity of another party or
third person.’” Ainsworth, 716 F. 3d at 177 (cleaned up).
The Fifth Circuit distinguished the facts in Ainsworth from those
in J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011), a then-
recently decided Supreme Court case. In Nicastro, a plaintiff attempted
to hale a foreign corporation into New Jersey state court after one of the
corporation’s machines caused the plaintiff injury. 	Nicastro, 564 U.S.
at 878. The New Jersey Supreme Court asserted jurisdiction over the
foreign corporation based on three facts: “(1) [t]he American Distributor
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 52 Filed 11/18/25 Page 10 of 15

11
on one occasion sold and shipped one machine to a New Jersey
customer . . .; (2) the [foreign] Manufacturer permitted, indeed wanted,
its independent American Distributor to sell its machines to anyone in
America willing to buy them; and (3) representative of the [foreign]
Manufacturer attended trade shows in [cities in the United States, none
of which were located in New Jersey].” Id. In overturning the Supreme
Court of New Jersey, the United States Supreme Court held that because
“[a] single sale of a product in a State does not constitute an adequate
basis for asserting jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant,” the
plaintiff had not met his burden of establishing jurisdiction. Id. at 888.
The plurality opinion went on to list several factors that, if present with
the sale, could create contact sufficient to establish jurisdiction. Id.
In Ainsworth, the Fifth Circuit highlighted key differences from
Nicastro, to find that personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer
existed despite the manufacturer’s having no direct contact with the
forum states except through its United States distributor. 716 F. 3d at
176-79. 18 In Ainsworth, a plaintiff attempted to hale into court a foreign
18 	The Fifth Circuit later explained their own decision in Ainsworth
as “reaffirm[ing] the validity of [the Circuit’s] stream-of-
commerce test despite the Supreme Court’s interjection on the
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 52 Filed 11/18/25 Page 11 of 15

12
corporation that designed and manufactured a forklift that injured
plaintiff’s husband. Id. at 178. The foreign manufacturer distributed its
forklifts throughout the United States through an exclusive distribution
agreement with a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Ohio. Id. at 176. In concluding that jurisdiction existed, the
Fifth Circuit explained that:
From 2000 through September 2010, [the foreign manufacturer]
sold 13,073 forklifts to [the United States Distributor], worth
approximately $254,000,000. 	[the United States Distributor]
sold 203 of these forklifts, worth approximately $3,950,000, to
customers in [the forum state]. 	Those . . . sales accounted for
approximately 1.55% of [the Manufacturer’s] United States sales
during that period.
Id. at 179. 	The Fifth Circuit went on to conclude that while the
Manufacturer 	“did 	not 	have 	specific 	knowledge 	of 	sales” 	by 	the
Distributor in the forum state, “it reasonably could have expected that
such sales would be made, given that [the forum state] is the fourth
largest poultry-producing state in the United States.” Id.
topic in McIntyre.” Zoch, 810 F. App’x at 290. The Fifth Circuit
added that the although the test was in tension with Justice
Kennedy’s plurality opinion, because the concurrence providing
the narrowest opinion “simply applied existing Supreme Court
precedent to the specific facts presented in that case, [the
Circuit’s] pre-McIntyre stream-of-commerce holdings were not
abrogated.” Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 52 Filed 11/18/25 Page 12 of 15

13
Plaintiffs here have not made nearly as strong a showing of
foreseeability 	as 	in 	Ainsworth. 	Plaintiffs 	have 	not 	provided 	any
allegations that the quantity of Braun France’s sales, advertising, or
marketing in Louisiana is high enough that being haled into Louisiana
is foreseeable. Nor have plaintiffs alleged that there is something special
about Louisiana that would lead Braun France to “reasonably” expect a
large volume of sales might be made. Simply put, plaintiffs have failed
to plausibly allege any of the conditions that the Fifth Circuit relied on
to find foreseeability in Ainsworth.
Plaintiffs 	additionally 	alleges 	no 	specific 	facts 	to 	show
foreseeability based on Braun France’s having specific knowledge or an
expectation that its product is being sold in Louisiana. Plaintiffs make
no specific allegations that Braun France has employees, offices, or
facilities in Louisiana, advertises specifically in Louisiana, makes any
direct 	sales 	in 	Louisiana, 	or 	directs 	that 	its 	products 	be 	sold 	in
Louisiana. 	In fact, defendant provides an affidavit stating that Braun
France does not engage in any of those activities. 19
19 	R. Doc. 32-3 at ¶¶ 6-7, 9, 12-14, 16.
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 52 Filed 11/18/25 Page 13 of 15

14
Plaintiffs urge that an Instructions for Use handout, provided to
Shannon McGuire, shows that Braun France provided support services
in Louisiana, thereby establishing foreseeability.20 	Plaintiffs state this
handout was used as a brochure for the VenaTech LP, and that it was
provided to Shannon McGuire in Louisiana. 21 	The handout does not
show that Braun France provided support services in Louisiana. 	All it
shows is that Braun France is the manufacturer of the VenaTech. While
the handout does provide a French address and fax number for Braun
France, this is included as information on the manufacturer. 22 	In
multiple 	places 	the 	handout 	states 	that 	the 	VenaTech 	LP 	was
manufactured for BMI in Pennsylvania, and a United States phone
number, fax number, and website are provided “for orders” and “for
clinical/technical support.” 23 	The inclusion of an address and fax
number on a general brochure that directs inquiries “for orders” and
“for clinical/technical support” to the United States distributor based in
a 	different 	state 	than 	the 	forum 	is 	insufficient 	to 	establish 	that
20 	R. Doc. 37.
21 	Id. at 2-3.
22 	R. Doc. 37-2 at 8, 15.
23 	Id. at 8, 14-15.
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 52 Filed 11/18/25 Page 14 of 15

15
defendant had actual knowledge or expected its product to be used in
Louisiana.
Plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie case for jurisdiction. The
Court therefore need not evaluate whether the exercise of jurisdiction
over Braun France would comport with traditional notions of fair play
and substantial justice.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of November, 2025.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18th
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 52 Filed 11/18/25 Page 15 of 15