Filed: Nov. 27, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-60333 Summary Calendar MARTY MCLAURIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GLADYS NAZAR, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi (1:93-CV-336-S-D) November 20, 1995 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Marty McLaurin appeals the district court's dismissal of his personal injury suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm. I. Fo
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-60333 Summary Calendar MARTY MCLAURIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GLADYS NAZAR, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi (1:93-CV-336-S-D) November 20, 1995 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Marty McLaurin appeals the district court's dismissal of his personal injury suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm. I. For..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-60333
Summary Calendar
MARTY MCLAURIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GLADYS NAZAR,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
(1:93-CV-336-S-D)
November 20, 1995
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marty McLaurin appeals the district court's dismissal of his
personal injury suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm.
I.
For five years until June 1992, Gladys Nazar was living with
her boyfriend in Collierville, Tennessee. Around 1989 or 1990,
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that
have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
Nazar took her female silky terrier to the home of Terry Carter in
Olive Branch, Mississippi, to be bred with Carter's male silky
terrier. Nazar and Carter forged a lasting friendship out of this
meeting, and in June 1992, when Nazar was having domestic problems
with her Collierville boyfriend, she went to Olive Branch to stay
with Carter for awhile. Nazar did not pay rent while living in
Carter's home, but did split living expenses with Carter. Nazar
also acquired her own phone line and continued working for Federal
Express in Memphis, Tennessee. Nazar lived in Carter's home until
the end of November 1992, at which time she moved to Collierville.
In April 1993, Nazar moved to California.
On July 16, 1992, shortly after Nazar had begun staying with
Carter in Mississippi, Nazar was involved in an auto accident with
Marty McLaurin in Collierville, Tennessee, when Nazar allegedly ran
a red light. In October 1993, McLaurin filed this personal injury
suit against Nazar in Mississippi state court. As Nazar had moved
to California by the time McLaurin sued, she removed the case to
federal district court, which subsequently granted her motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. McLaurin appeals.
II.
Mississippi's long-arm statute allows Mississippi courts to
exercise jurisdiction over nonresident defendants who (1) "make a
contract with a resident of this state to be performed in whole or
in part by any party in this state"; (2) "commit a tort in whole or
in part in this state against a resident or nonresident of this
2
state"; or (3) "do any business or perform any character of work or
service in this state." Miss. Code Ann. § 13-3-57. McLaurin
contends that the district court erred in holding that this statute
does not render Nazar amenable to his suit. He argues that Nazar's
actions in meeting with Carter in Mississippi to breed their dogs;
living with Carter for several months; and contracting for her own
phone service in Carter's home established that Nazar either made
and performed a contract or did business in Mississippi within the
meaning of the long-arm statute.
We are persuaded that the district court properly dismissed
McLaurin's suit. First, the district court held that, even if the
dog breeding arrangement between Nazar and Carter amounted to a
"contract," McLaurin could not rely on that contract or Nazar's
phone service contract to establish personal jurisdiction over
Nazar under the first prong of the statute since McLaurin's claim
was unrelated to those contracts. The district court rejected
Nazar's argument that a 1991 amendment to the long-arm statute
eliminated any requirement of a relationship between a claim and a
contract that is the basis for reaching a nonresident defendant.
We agree with the district court. Given that the Supreme Court of
Mississippi has not yet decided whether the amended long-arm
statute still requires such a relationship, and since we find
persuasive the district court's reasoning on this contention in its
memorandum opinion dismissing the plaintiff's complaint, it is
appropriate that we defer to the district court's construction of
3
the law of the state in which it sits. See Raju v. Rhodes,
7 F.3d
1210, 1212 (5th Cir. 1993).
Second, the district court also rejected McLaurin's argument
that Nazar's involvement with Carter established that she was doing
business in Mississippi within the meaning of the third prong of
the long-arm statute. The district court determined: (1) that
Nazar's temporary residence, dog breeding liaison, and procurement
of phone service in Mississippi did not support the conclusion that
she was doing business in Mississippi; and (2) that, in any event,
the third prong of the statute was inapplicable since McClaurin's
auto-accident injury was not incidental to Nazar's activities in
Mississippi. Again, according deference to the district court's
interpretation of the Mississippi long-arm statute, we agree that
the absence of any connection between McLaurin's personal injury
suit and Nazar's transactions in Mississippi renders the third-
prong of the statute unavailing as a means for asserting personal
jurisdiction over Nazar. See Cycles Ltd. v. W.J. Digby, Inc.,
889
F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir. 1989).
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's
dismissal of McLaurin's suit without prejudice.
4