Filed: Feb. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-20475 JERRY L. LANDERS, ET AL, Plaintiffs, L.B. FOSTER COMPANY, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAWSON CONSTRUCTION PLANT LIMITED, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (C.A. No. H-99-2516) February 12, 2001 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* In this diversity product-liability case, Intervenor- Plaintiff-Appellant L.B. Foste
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-20475 JERRY L. LANDERS, ET AL, Plaintiffs, L.B. FOSTER COMPANY, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAWSON CONSTRUCTION PLANT LIMITED, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (C.A. No. H-99-2516) February 12, 2001 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* In this diversity product-liability case, Intervenor- Plaintiff-Appellant L.B. Foster..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20475
JERRY L. LANDERS, ET AL,
Plaintiffs,
L.B. FOSTER COMPANY,
Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAWSON CONSTRUCTION PLANT LIMITED,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(C.A. No. H-99-2516)
February 12, 2001
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this diversity product-liability case, Intervenor-
Plaintiff-Appellant L.B. Foster Company (“Foster”) appeals the
district court’s dismissal of its claims against Defendant-Appellee
Dawson Construction Plant Limited (“Dawson”) for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Foster contends that Dawson, although a British
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
1
company with its principal place of business in the United Kingdom,
(1) purposefully established minimum contacts with Texas such that
the exercise of jurisdiction over Dawson comports with the due
process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that (2) the
exercise of such jurisdiction comports with traditional notions of
fair play and substantial justice.1 Having carefully considered
the record, the arguments and briefs of counsel, and the opinion of
the district court, we are satisfied that the motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction was properly granted, and accordingly
we affirm the judgment of the district court for essentially the
same reasons set forth in its well-reasoned opinion.
AFFIRMED.
1
See Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia S.A. v. Hall,
466
U.S. 408, 413 (1984).
2