Page:Jackson v FIE Corp.pdf/3

No. 07-30936 On appeal, this court reversed and remanded the case for further adversarial proceedings on the issue of personal jurisdiction. See Jackson v. FIE Corp., 302 F.3d 515, 531 (5th Cir. 2002) (Tanfoglio I). Upon remand, the parties engaged in over four years of highly contentious discovery. Plaintiffs argued that the court had specific personal jurisdiction because the Tanfoglio entities manufactured the pistol or the firing pin, and that there was general jurisdiction arising from the Tanfoglio entities’ continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state. In its order, dated April 30, 2007, the district court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that (1) Fratelli Tanfoglio made the defective firing pin, (2) the actions of other Tanfoglio entities should be imputed to Fratelli Tanfoglio, and (3) Fratelli Tanfoglio was subject to general jurisdiction in Louisiana. Jackson v. F.I.E. Corp., No. 95-2389, 2007 WL 1259216, at *3—7 (E.D. La. Apr. 30, 2007) (Tanfoglio II). Having found that there was "insufficient evidence in the record to support [P]laintiffs' contention" that the court had jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims, id. at * 6, the district court then entered a judgment in favor of Fratelli Tanfoglio, dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against Fratelli Tanfoglio without prejudice, id. at *7. The district court later denied Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider, and Plaintiffs timely appealed.

"[W]hether in personam jurisdiction can be exercised over a defendant is a question of law and subject to de novo review." Dickson Marine Inc. v. Panalpina, Inc., 179 F.3d 331, 335 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Tanfoglio I, 302 F.3d at 521 (stating that the de novo standard applies to challenges to personal jurisdiction brought under Rule 60(b)(4)).

In Tanfoglio I, we stated that Fratelli Tanfoglio bore the burden of demonstrating the absence of personal jurisdiction. 302 F.3d at 520-21. We noted that placing the burden of proof on Fratelli Tanfoglio was not necessarily the law of the circuit, but it was the law of the case, as Fratelli Tanfoglio had not 3