CEH Energy, L.L.C. v. Kean Miller, L.L.P., 062617 FED5, 16-60659
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||CEH ENERGY, L.L.C.; SHENZHEN CAREALL INVESTMENT HOLDINGS GROUP COMPANY, LIMITED, Plaintiffs - Appellants v. KEAN MILLER, L.L.P.; STEPHEN HANEMANN, Defendants - Appellees|
|Judge Panel:||Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and WIENER and PRADO, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||June 26, 2017|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:15-CV-154
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and WIENER and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM [*]
This action arose from the purchase of an interest in a prospective oil and gas well (the "Williams Well") by Plaintiffs-Appellants CEH Energy, LLC ("CEH") and Shenzhen Careall Investment Holdings Group Co., Ltd. ("Careall") from Intrepid Drilling, LLC ("Intrepid"). Following their due diligence investigation of the Williams Well prospect, appellants retained Defendant-Appellee Stephen Hanemann, an attorney at the Louisiana law firm of Defendant-Appellee Kean Miller, L.L.P. ("Kean Miller"), to represent them in the execution of a Participation Agreement. After the Williams Well proved unsuccessful, appellants sued appellees and others in federal court in Mississippi, claiming, inter alia, that appellees had committed various torts and violated various state and federal securities laws during this representation. According to appellants, they did not know that appellees also represented Intrepid and its owner, William Simmons, III (collectively the "Simmons defendants").
CEH is a Delaware limited liability company and a United States subsidiary of Carreall, a Chinese investment company. Hanemann is a Louisiana resident, and Kean Miller is a Louisiana limited liability partnership. Simmons is a Mississippi resident, and Intrepid is a Mississippi limited liability company. The district court dismissed appellants' claims against appellees for lack of personal jurisdiction.
We review de novo a district court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), 1 and we review a district court's factual findings for clear error.2 "[P]laintiff bears the burden of establishing a district court's jurisdiction over a non-resident, but it need only make a prima facie case if the district court rules without an...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP