## Facts

- Roberto Gómez Cabrera owned mineral mines in Cuba that were confiscated by the Cuban government around 1960.
- Cabrera’s heirs inherited the claim and assigned their interests to Herederos de Roberto Gómez Cabrera, LLC, a Florida entity.
- Teck Resources Limited is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in Canada.
- In the 1990s, Teck participated in mineral exploration and development activities in Cuba through joint-venture arrangements involving other entities, including a Cuban state-owned company.
- Herederos sued Teck under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 (Helms–Burton Act), alleging Teck “trafficked” in confiscated property by managing and operating the mines.
- Teck contested personal jurisdiction, asserting it was not incorporated in the United States, was not licensed to do business in Florida, and operated in the United States only through separate subsidiaries.

## Issues

1. In a federal-question case invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), does the Fifth Amendment due process inquiry apply the traditional minimum-contacts framework (as under the Fourteenth Amendment), or a looser “arbitrary or fundamentally unfair” standard drawn from extraterritorial-regulation cases?
2. Under the proper Fifth Amendment standard, did Teck have sufficient contacts with the United States to support general or specific personal jurisdiction for a Helms–Burton trafficking claim?

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court held that Fifth Amendment personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2) uses the same minimum-contacts framework applied under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Considering the United States as the relevant forum for Rule 4(k)(2), the court found Teck was not subject to general jurisdiction because it was not “essentially at home” in the United States.
- The court found no specific jurisdiction because the alleged trafficking conduct occurred in Cuba and the claim did not arise out of or relate to Teck’s U.S. contacts.
- The court resolved the case on personal-jurisdiction grounds without addressing other potential threshold issues.

## Legal Principles

- Personal jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment in Rule 4(k)(2) cases is evaluated using the minimum-contacts test, including the requirement that jurisdiction comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
- For Rule 4(k)(2), the relevant forum for minimum-contacts analysis is the United States as a whole, not any single state.
- General jurisdiction exists only where a defendant is “essentially at home,” typically its place of incorporation or principal place of business; contacts of separate subsidiaries are not automatically imputed to the parent.
- Specific jurisdiction requires a case-linked connection: the claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum; foreign conduct alone does not create specific jurisdiction absent such a nexus.
- A federal statute’s substantive reach (including Helms–Burton’s trafficking prohibition) does not eliminate the constitutional requirement of sufficient forum contacts.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that Fifth Amendment due process for Rule 4(k)(2) tracks the standard minimum-contacts analysis and affirmed dismissal because the Canadian defendant was neither “at home” in the United States nor connected to the United States in a way that related to the alleged trafficking in Cuba.


Herederos de Roberto Gómez Cabrera, LLC v. Teck Resources Ltd., 43 F.4th 1303 (11th Cir. 2022)