Stangel v. Johnson & Madigan ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10038
Summary Calendar
FRANK JOHN STANGEL
Plaintiff-Appellant
versus
JOHNSON & MADIGAN PLLP, formerly Johnson & Madigan; MICHAEL J.
MINENKO
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:99-CV-1518-D
July 27, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Stangel sued Minenko and Johnson & Madigan, a Minnesota
attorney and law firm, respectively, for legal malpractice, breach
of fiduciary duty, and promissory estoppel. We AFFIRM the
dismissal of the action for want of personal jurisdiction.
Where, as here, a court considers a motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction without conducting an evidentiary hearing,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
the plaintiff must prove a prima facie case of jurisdiction. See
Bullion v. Gillespie, 895 F.2d 213, 217 (5th Cir. 1990).
Stangel alleged that his claims against Minenko and the law
firm were "related to" his bankruptcy proceeding in the Northern
District of Texas. The district courts have subject matter
jurisdiction over cases that are "related to" bankruptcy
proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). The bankruptcy court has
jurisdiction over claims that are "related to" a bankruptcy action
when those claims could have an effect on the bankruptcy estate.
See In re Canion, 196 F.3d 579, 581 (5th Cir. 1999). Stangel
failed to allege any fact to show that his claims against Minenko
could have any conceivable effect on the bankruptcy estate.1
Since Stangel failed to make a prima facie showing that the
court could have jurisdiction over his claims under § 1334(b),
subject matter jurisdiction would accordingly be based on diversity
of citizenship. Stangel argues in the alternative that the court
had personal jurisdiction over Minenko and the law firm if subject
matter jurisdiction arises from diversity of citizenship. Due
process requires that the defendant have minimum contacts with the
forum state in order for the court to exercise personal
jurisdiction over him. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington,
1
Stangel argues that the district court erred in failing to
take judicial notice of his pending bankruptcy case. However, the
court's order denying Stangel's motion to reconsider shows that the
court determined that the bankruptcy case was closed.
2
326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). Minenko's contacts with Texas are
limited to billing communications with Stengel regarding the case
undertaken in Minnesota. Communications from a nonresident to a
domiciliary regarding the execution of a contract are insufficient
to support personal jurisdiction. See Gundle Lining Constr. Corp.
v. Adams County Asphalt, Inc., 85 F.3d 201, 205 (5th Cir. 1996).
Minenko's contacts with Stangel in Texas regarding the handling of
a property dispute in Minnesota are not the minimum contacts
necessary to create personal jurisdiction over the defendants in
Texas.
We AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of Stangel's claims,
because there is no subject matter jurisdiction under § 1334(b) and
no personal jurisdiction over the defendants where subject matter
jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship.
AFFIRMED.
3