Patin v. Sioux City and New Orleans Barge Lines, Inc.

Decision Date05 May 1966
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 11153.
Citation253 F. Supp. 984
PartiesWhitney PATIN v. SIOUX CITY AND NEW ORLEANS BARGE LINES, INC.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana

Domengeaux & Wright, Bob F. Wright, Lafayette, La., for plaintiff.

Lemle & Kelleher, George B. Matthews, New Orleans, La., and Bracewell, Reynolds & Patterson, Houston, Tex., for defendant.

PUTNAM, District Judge.

In this Jones Act suit defendant corporation has moved to dismiss the suit against it for lack of proper venue. The basis for its motion is that it is not doing business in this district and, hence, it would not be proper to require it to litigate in this district, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(c).

Both parties rely upon the Suarez1 decision, complainant contending that it requires only the transacting of "any business" in a district to satisfy the venue requirement of the Jones Act, defendant asserting that it requires the transacting of "substantial business". Although Suarez does control in a venue question such as is presented here, we do not think that it stands for either interpretation proposed by the parties.

We adopt the view that the test of doing business is the same for venue purposes as it is for determining whether a corporation is amenable to service of process.2 The requirements necessary to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam have been set out in the leading case of International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 1945, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95. The Court held that due process was satisfied if the defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The Court emphasized that the determination of "minimum contacts" is not simply quantitative, but, rather depends on the quality and nature of the activity of the foreign corporation in the forum state, and that an "estimate of the inconveniences" which would result to the corporation from a trial away from its "home" or principal place of business is also relevant.

"`Presence' in the state in this sense has never been doubted when the activities of the corporation there have not only been continuous and systematic, but also give rise to the liabilities sued on, even though no consent to be sued or authorization to an agent to accept service of process has been given." Id., 326 U.S. at page 317, 66 S.Ct. at page 159. (Emphasis supplied.)

In determining whether a corporation is present and doing business, we are told that there is no exact formula under which the question can be decided.3

"To reach the proper answer, consideration must be given to such relevant factors as the general character of the corporation, the nature and scope of its business operations, the extent of the authorized corporate activities conducted on its behalf within the forum district, the continuity of those activities, and its contacts within the district." Id., 349 F.2d at page 459.

In applying these criteria to the case at bar, we do not think that the record here shows that defendant meets the test for doing business in this district. The defendant is an Iowa corporation with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. It is engaged in the business of interstate movement of cargo by barges and towboats along the Mississippi River and inland waters tributary thereto. Its activities in the Western District of Louisiana have been only casual and isolated, as opposed to "continuous and systematic". Moreover, its activities in the Western District have not given rise to the liabilities sued on since this accident happened on the Mississippi River near New Orleans, in the Eastern District of Louisiana. Aside from several isolated instances of purchasing food and supplies totalling slightly over $1,000.00 at Morgan City, Louisiana, the last of which was December 28, 1962, and contracting for towing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Cable News Network, Inc. v. AM. BROADCASTING, ETC., Civ. A. No. C81-871
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • December 2, 1981
    ...extends to the limits of due process, this Court believes that the better view is that it does. See Patin v. Sioux City and New Orleans Barge Lines, Inc., 253 F.Supp. 984, 986 (W.D.La.1966); Wright, C. & Miller, A., Cooper, E., supra, § 3811 at 65, and cases cited at n.45 (1976 ed.); 1 Moor......
  • Crompton-Richmond Co., Inc.-Factors v. Smith
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • May 16, 1966
  • Transload & Transport v. TENN. VALLEY TOWING, Civ. A. No. 85-240-B.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana
    • May 13, 1985
    ...on when it should be subjected to service of process in that district. Frazier, 349 F.2d at 459; Patin v. Sioux City & New Orleans Barge Lines, 253 F.Supp. 984, 986 (W.D.La.1966); C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, 15 Federal Practice & Procedure § 3811, at 64-65 (1976 & Supp. 1984). In Inte......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT