Dudek v. Donald C & Eleanore

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 23, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-30953
Summary Calendar
MARION A. DUDEK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DONALD C. & ELEANOR J. GLANVILLE REVOCABLE TRUST,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 03-CV-1799
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marion A. Dudek appeals from the district court’s dismissal,
for lack of personal jurisdiction, of his action against the
Donald C. & Eleanor J. Glanville Revocable Trust (“the Trust”).
In the action, which the Trust removed from Louisiana state
court, Dudek sought declaratory relief regarding an arbitration
clause in a Bare Boat Charter contract (“the Charter”) for Barge
ZB-300 (“the Barge”) and injunctive relief barring the Trust from
enforcing the arbitration provision against Dudek.

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 03-30953
-2-
This court reviews the district court’s dismissal de novo.
See Alpine View Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 214
(5th Cir. 2000). The plaintiff may satisfy its burden by
presenting a prima facie case for jurisdiction. See Felch v.
Transportes Lar-Mex SA de CV, 92 F.3d 320, 326 (5th Cir. 1996).
All uncontroverted allegations by the plaintiff are accepted, and
all conflicts between the parties are resolved in favor of the
plaintiff. See Alpine, 205 F.3d at 215.
Dudek argues that the Trust’s contacts with Louisiana are
sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction. He attempts to
distinguish the facts of his case from Hydrokinetics, Inc. v.
Alaska Mechanical, Inc., 700 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1983).
After a thorough review of the record, we have determined that
the district court did not err in granting the Trust’s motion
to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction. The evidence of
record in connection with the motion to dismiss does not indicate
that the Trust purposefully directed its activities at the
resident of the forum so as to establish specific jurisdiction.
See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 (1985).
The facts of the instant matter are closely analogous to
Hydrokinetics. Although the parties formed the Charter in
Louisiana, as in Hydrokinetics the significance of that fact is
diminished by a choice-of-law provision that invokes the law of
another state. See Hydrokinetics, 700 F.2d at 1029. While it is
relevant that one or more Trust representatives traveled to

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 03-30953
-3-
Louisiana regarding the Charter, as in Hydrokinetics such travel
is not sufficient “to alter the basic quality and nature of [the
non-resident defendant’s] contact with the [forum] state.” Id.
Finally, aside from the temporary presence of the Barge in
Louisiana waters, our review of the record indicates, as in
Hydrokinetics, that the sole contact between the non-resident
defendant and the forum state is a contract that did not require
performance, other than payment, by the defendant in the forum
state. See id. The mere presence of the Barge in Louisiana
waters does not establish that the Trust has sufficient
“continuous and systematic” contacts with the forum state to
establish general jurisdiction. See Helicopteros Nacionales de
Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-15 (1984).
In view of our determination that Dudek failed to establish
that the Trust was subject to personal jurisdiction, we do not
consider Dudek’s argument that he is entitled to have a court
determine whether he bound himself personally to arbitration
under the Charter and whether the arbitrator has jurisdiction
over him. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --