Phalisity Williams v. Direct Auto CDJR, LLC

Williams · United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · March 13, 2026 · No. 3:25-cv-00214-JDM-RP

Summary

The court holds that it has general personal jurisdiction over Direct Auto CDJR, LLC because it is a Mississippi entity, rejecting the defendant’s personal-jurisdiction defense. The court concludes that venue is improper in the Northern District of Mississippi because the alleged credit inquiries occurred at the defendant’s location in the Southern District. Rather than dismissing the action, the court transfers it to the Southern District of Mississippi, Northern Division, and denies the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply.

Holdings

  1. Direct Auto did not waive its personal-jurisdiction or venue defenses through its limited participation in discovery because it preserved the defenses in its answer and did not actively litigate the merits.
  2. The Northern District of Mississippi had general personal jurisdiction over Direct Auto because Direct Auto is a Mississippi entity and is therefore subject to general jurisdiction in Mississippi courts.
  3. Venue was improper in the Northern District of Mississippi because the alleged unauthorized credit inquiries and related acts or omissions occurred at Direct Auto's place of business in the Southern District, not in the Northern District merely because Williams allegedly experienced harm there.
  4. Transfer to the Southern District of Mississippi, Northern Division, was preferable to dismissal because Williams filed in the Northern District in good faith and transfer served the interests of justice and judicial economy.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Direct Auto waived its personal-jurisdiction and improper-venue defenses by participating in discovery after preserving those defenses in its answer.
  2. Whether the Northern District of Mississippi had personal jurisdiction over Direct Auto, a Mississippi business located in the Southern District.
  3. Whether venue was proper in the Northern District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because Williams allegedly experienced harm there.
  4. Whether the action should be dismissed or transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) when venue was improper.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (16)

  • Farmer v. Synergy Refrigeration, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-213-DPJ-FKB, 2014 WL 12622456, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 14, 2014)(followed)
  • Brokerwood Prods. Int'l (U.S.), Inc. v. Cuisine Crotone, Inc., 104 F. App'x 376, 380-81 (5th Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • PaineWebber Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Priv. Bank (Switz.), 260 F.3d 453, 459 (5th Cir. 2001)(followed)
  • 21st Mortg. Corp. v. Lyndon S. Ins. Co., No. 2:23-cv-196-KS-MTP, 2024 WL 3069821, at *1 (S.D. Miss. June 20, 2024)(followed)
  • Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 592 U.S. 351, 358, 141 S. Ct. 1017, 209 L. Ed. 2d 225 (2021)(followed)
  • Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 180 L. Ed. 2d 796 (2011)(followed)
  • Hanson, Executrix, et al. v. Denckla et al., Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S. Ct. 1228, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1283 (1958)(distinguished)
  • In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. 351(distinguished)
  • World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S. Ct. 559, 62 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1980)(distinguished)

Showing top 10 of 16.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…