Ouazzani-Chahdi v. Greensboro News

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
September 12, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
_______________
m 05-20957
Summary Calendar
_______________
ANWAR OUAZZANI-CHAHDI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
GREENSBORO NEWS & RECORD, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
m 4:05-CV-1898
______________________________
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN,
Circuit Judges.
JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:*
Anwar Ouazzani-Chahdi, an attorney ap-
pearing pro se, sued Greensboro News & Rec-
ord, Inc. (“News & Record”), for slander per
se, negligence, and gross negligence based on
an allegedly defamatory news article. The
district court dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction. We affirm.
I.
News & Record, a North Carolina corpora-
tion with principal place of business there,
publishes the News & Record, a newspaper
circulated primarily in Guilford County, North
Carolina. Of the paper’s 95,600 daily copies,
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has de-
termined that this opinion should not be published
and is not precedent except under the limited cir-
cumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

-- 1 of 5 --

99% are distributed in North Carolina; only
three subscriptions are distributed in Texas.
In 2004 the News & Record published a
story about sham marriages used by immi-
grants to obtain United States citizenship il-
legally. Lynn Hey, Fake-marriage schemes
commonplace, NEWS &RECORD (Greensboro,
N.C.), Apr. 25, 2004, at A1. The article fo-
cused on a local immigration attorney, Manlin
Chee, who was allegedly under investigation
by the FBI for helping immigrants arrange
such marriages. The article mentioned five
domestic relations cases that had been filed in
Guilford County, North Carolina. Chee repre-
sented one of the parties in each of the five
cases, and all of them involved marriages that
were allegedly shams.
One of these marriages was that of Ouaz-
zani-Chahdi, who had hired Chee to represent
him in his divorce. Ouazzani-Chahdi, who
used to reside in North Carolina, is now a
Texas citizen. The story alleged, based on
quotations from his ex-wife and her lawyer,
that Ouazzani-Chahdi had married to obtain
permanent legal resident status. The lawyer
stated that had Ouazzani-Chahdi’s ex-wife
known that this was his motivation she would
not have married him.1
Ouazzani-Chahdi sued News & Record in
Texas state court, asserting that the defama-
tory article had caused him physical and rep-
utational harm. News & Record removed to
federal court via diversity jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1332, then successfully moved
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12-
(b)(2) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdic-
tion.
II.
The district court held that it lacked both
general and specific jurisdiction over News &
Record. Ouazzani-Chahdi appeals only the
finding that the court lacked specific jurisdic-
tion.
We review de novo a district court’s deter-
mination that it lacks personal jurisdiction.
Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467, 469 (5th Cir.
1 The mention of Ouazzani-Chahdi is, in its en-
tirety, as follows:
In 1998, Myriah I. Ouazzani-Chahdi filed for
an annulment of her marriage to Anwar Ouaz-
zani-Chahdi, who was not a U.S. citizen. In
her complaint, the wife called her marriage a
“sham, as a means for obtaining permanent
legal resident status” for Anwar Ouazzani-
Chahdi.
“Had she known that (Anwar Ouazzani-
Chahdi) was marrying her to obtain legal resi-
dence status with the (Immigration and Natu-
ralization Service), she would have never mar-
(continued...)
1(...continued)
ried him,” her lawyer, John W. Lunsford,
wrote to the court.
Anwar Ouazzani-Chahdi hired Chee to rep-
resent him. Chee responded that there was no
deception and that the couple had attended
marriage counseling to salvage the relation-
ship.
Lunsford said in an interview last week that
wasn’t the case, Anwar Ouazzani-Chahdi
quickly lost interest in his new life after the
marriage was complete. Lunsford said the cou-
ple lived together only a short time.
“It wasn’t what we consider a real marriage,”
Lunsford said.
Attempts to reach Anwar Ouazzani-Chahdi
were unsuccessful.
A judge refused the annulment but later grant-
ed Myriah Ouazzani-Chahdi a divorce, Luns-
ford said. Citizenship records are not public,
and it is unclear whether Anwar Ouazzani-
Chahdi became a citizen.

-- 2 of 5 --

2002). The plaintiff bears the burden of es-
tablishing jurisdiction, but need only present
prima facie evidence. Kelly v. Syria Shell
Petroleum Dev. B.V., 213 F.3d 841, 854 (5th
Cir. 2000). All relevant factual disputes are
resolved in plaintiff’s favor. Alpine View Co.
Ltd. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215
(5th Cir. 2000). “Although jurisdictional alle-
gations must be accepted as true, such accep-
tance does not automatically mean that a pri-
ma facie case for specific jurisdiction has
been presented.” Panda Brandywine Corp. v.
Potomac Elec. Power Co., 253 F.3d 865, 868
(5th Cir. 2001).
A federal district court sitting in diversity
may exercise personal jurisdiction over a de-
fendant if (1) the long-arm statute of the for-
um state establishes personal jurisdiction and
(2) the exercise of personal jurisdiction does
not exceed the boundaries of the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Revell,
317 F.3d at 469. Texas’s long-arm statute
reaches to the limits permitted by the Consti-
tution, so the inquiry collapses into whether
the exercise of jurisdiction over News & Rec-
ord would offend due process. Electrosource,
Inc. v. Horizon Battery Techs., Ltd., 176 F.3d
867, 871 (5th Cir. 1999).
The Due Process Clause “operates to limit
the power of a State to assert in personam
jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.”
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v.
Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 413-14 (1984). It permits
courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over a
foreign defendant where (1) “that defendant
has purposefully availed himself of the bene-
fits and protections of the forum state by es-
tablishing ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum
state and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction over
that defendant does not offend ‘traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice.’”
Revell, 317 F.3d at 470 (quoting Int’l Shoe
Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)).
Specific jurisdiction in suits alleging an in-
tentional tort based on the publication of de-
famatory material exists for (1) publication
with adequate circulation in the forum state or
(2) an author or publisher who “aims” a story
at the state knowing that the “effects” of the
story will be felt there. Fielding v. Hubert
Burda Media, Inc., 415 F.3d 419, 425 (5th
Cir. 2005) (citing Keeton v. Hustler Maga-
zine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 773-74 (1984); Cal-
der v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789-90 (1984)).
Ouazzani-Chahdi does not appeal the holding
that News & Record’s circulation of three
copies in Texas falls short of an “adequate cir-
culation in the state” such that personal juris-
diction is warranted under Keeton. Thus, we
turn to the “effects” test of Calder.
As distinguished from Keeton jurisdiction,
which is based on the number of subscriptions
distributed in the forum, Calder jurisdiction
requires a “case-by-case analysis of the pur-
pose and impact of the publication in ques-
tion.” Fielding, 415 F.3d at 425. In addition
to requiring that the “effects” of the story be
felt in the forum, this court has held that the
“aim” of the defendant under the Calder test
must be demonstrated by showing that
(1) “the subject matter of and (2) the sources
relied upon for the article were in the forum
state.” Id. at 426 (citing Revell, 317 F.3d at
474 & n.48).
III.
In Calder the plaintiff was a California res-
ident who sued an editor and a writer for the
National Enquirer, both residents of Florida,
for libel in California state court. The Su-
preme Court upheld personal jurisdiction over
defendants because they had “expressly
aimed” the article toward California. Calder,
465 U.S. at 789. The Court based this conclu-
sion on several factors: The story drew on
California sources, it focused on the Califor-
nia activities of a California resident, and the
bulk of the harm caused to the plaintiff was

-- 3 of 5 --

suffered in California. Id. at 788-89. The
Court also noted that the National Enquirer
circulated more copies in California than in
any other state, so defendants knew that the
brunt of the injury to the plaintiff would be
felt in California. Id. at 790. The Enquirer
had a total circulation of 5 million, of which
600,000 were sold in California. Id. at 785.
We elaborated on the Calder test in Field-
ing, a case concerning defamatory articles
published by two German magazines about a
Texas resident who had lived in Berlin.
Fielding, 415 F.3d at 422-24. The story de-
famed the plaintiff and falsely reported that
her husband had had an extramarital affair in
Europe. The article made reference to plain-
tiff’s college years and modeling career in
Texas and used sources in Texas to conduct
background research. Id. at 426. Of the
magazine’s total weekly circulation of
750,000, 70 copies were distributed in Texas.
Despite these contacts, we held that personal
jurisdiction could not be exercised over the
foreign defendant, because the article “con-
cerned the German activities of individuals in
Germany.” Id. at 427. Further, another indi-
cator that the article was plainly “aimed” at
Germany was that 97% of the issues were
sold there. Id.
The present case resembles the facts of
Fielding much more than those of Calder. As
we have said, News & Record circulated only
three copies in Texas, far fewer than the
600,000 that were sent in Calder (in which
personal jurisdiction was found to exist), and
also fewer than the 70 in Fielding (in which
no jurisdiction was found). The News & Rec-
ord article covered the North Carolina activi-
ties of persons there. All five of the marriages
described, including Ouazzani-Chahdi’s, in-
volved a domestic relations action filed in
North Carolina. No Texas sources were used
in the story, and there was no mention of Tex-
as. These facts stand in stark contrast to those
found in Calder, in which the publisher relied
on California sources to cover the California
activities of a California resident.
Here the contacts with the forum are even
more scant than were those in Fielding, in
which personal jurisdiction was not found.
The German magazine in Fielding relied on at
least some Texas sources and tangentially
covered plaintiff’s Texas background. This
court ruled that those contacts were insuffi-
cient to establish that the defendant “aimed”
its conduct toward Texas under Calder. News
& Record distributed fewer copies to the for-
um than were distributed in Fielding, used
fewer forum sources, and included less mate-
rial about the forum in the story (indeed, no
material at all). Consequently, News & Re-
cord did not sufficiently “aim” its conduct
toward Texas such that a Texas court can ex-
ercise personal jurisdiction.
Ouazzani-Chahdi bases his argument in
large part on the availability of his biographi-
cal information, including his Texas residen-
cy, on the internet. If one enters his name into
particular internet search engines, one result
will be a website indicating that he is em-
ployed by a Houston law firm. He thus as-
serts that even if News & Record was un-
aware that he resided in Texas, this could be
discovered with minimal effort.
We must resolve all factual disputes in fa-
vor of Ouazzani-Chahdi. Despite this, the
sole fact that News & Record knew, or could
have determined through an internet search,
that Ouazzani-Chahdi now works at a Texas
firm is insufficient to establish personal juris-
diction under Calder. “[T]he plaintiff’s mere
residence in the forum state is not sufficient to
show that the defendant had knowledge that
effects would be felt there; a ‘more direct aim
is required.’” Fielding, 415 F.3d at 427 (quot-
ing Revell, 317 F.3d at 476). As discussed
above, there is no evidence, other than the fact

-- 4 of 5 --

of a mere three subscriptions, that defendants
“aimed” any conduct toward Texas.
In sum, Ouazzani-Chahdi failed to make a
prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction
over News & Record. We AFFIRM the dis-
missal for want of personal jurisdiction.

-- 5 of 5 --