3(2) to the extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Mullins v. TestAmerica, Inc
., 564 F.3d 386, 398 (5th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added);
seealso Internet Doorway, Inc. v. Parks
, 138 F. Supp. 2d 773, 775 (S.D. Miss. 2001) (“[I]nfederal question cases where the federal statute in question does not provide for service of process, ‘a federal court, even in a federal question case, can use a state long-arm statuteonly to reach those parties whom a court of the state could also reach under it.’”) (quoting
Burstein v. State Bar of Cal.
, 693 F.2d 511, 514 (5th Cir. 1982)).8.
Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of presenting
evidence in the FirstAmended Complaint to establish personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.
Morris v. Medley,
No. 1:10cv389-LG-RHW, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18452, at *5 (S.D. Miss. Feb.24, 2011).9.
Defendants do not reside in Mississippi, neither was found in Mississippi, neither hasagents in Mississippi, nor have either transacted any of their affairs in Mississippi as isrequired for personal jurisdiction based on the relevant provisions of RICO.
18U.S.C. § 1965(a).10.
Defendants do not maintain minimal contacts with the State of Mississippi to allow thisCourt to exercise personal jurisdiction over them.
See Charia v. Cigarette Racing Team, Inc.
, 583 F.2d 184, 186 (5th Cir. 1978);
Benjamin v. W. Boat Bldg. Corp.
, 472 F.2d 723,729 (5th Cir. 1973);
R. Clinton Constr. Co. v. Bryant & Reaves, Inc.
, 442 F. Supp. 838,849-50 (N.D. Miss. 1977).11.
Because the facts do not establish that the Defendants have sufficient minimum contactswith the forum state, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the Defendants would“offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v.
Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 57 Filed 10/26/12 Page 3 of 7