Opinion
A1209332
05-15-2013
HICHLIFT EQUIPMENT, LTD., Plaintiff v. ATLANTIC COASTAL EQUIPMENT, et al., Defendants
DECISION
Beth A. Myers, Judge.
This case is before the Court on the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted, but the request for attorney fees is denied.
STANDARD
When a defendant asserts lack of personal jurisdiction, plaintiff has the burden to establish jurisdiction. Jentzen v. Lomma Enters. , 1994 WL 243955 (Ohio App. 1st Dist.). If no evidentiary hearing is held, Plaintiff's burden is met by a prima facie showing of jurisdiction. Id. The allegations in the pleadings and the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff.
DISCUSSION
To determine whether personal jurisdiction exists, the Court must first determine whether jurisdiction is proper under Ohio's long arm statute, R.C. 2307.382, and the related Civil Rule, Civ. R. 4.3. If so, the Court must determine whether granting jurisdiction comports with the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Greene v. Whiteside (1st Dist. 2009), 181 Ohio App.3d 253, 2009 Ohio 741, 908 N.E.2d 975.
A. Long Arm Statute
R.C. 2307.382 and Civ. R. 4.3 confer personal jurisdiction over a defendant when the cause of action arises out of defendant's " transacting any business" in this state. Ohio courts construe this broadly. Greene, supra . " Transact" is broader than " contract" and includes " to carry on business" and " to have dealings." Id.
Defendant is a Georgia limited liability company which sold two pieces of equipment to Plaintiff. Plaintiff initiated the transaction by contacting Defendant. All negotiations took place by e-mail or phone, with Defendant remaining in Georgia. Plaintiff traveled to Georgia to pick up the equipment.
In order for Ohio courts to have jurisdiction over Defendant, the cause of action must arise out of Plaintiff's transacting business in this state. Mail and telephone communications with an Ohio resident is not alone sufficient. West v. Trace America, Inc ., 2007 Ohio 3311 (1st. Dist. 2007).
In this case, Plaintiff contacted Defendant in Georgia, Plaintiff picked up the equipment in Georgia and Plaintiff paid Defendant in Georgia.
Prior contacts with Ohio (as alleged by Plaintiff) are not relevant to determining whether Plaintiff's cause of action in this case arose out of Defendant's transaction of business in Ohio. In any event, the Court finds these prior contacts to be too attenuated to rise to the level of transacting business in Ohio.
B. Due Process
The next question is whether exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process. The Court finds it would not.
As stated by the Court in Greene, supra :
The Due Process Clause protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject to binding judgment of a forum with which that individual has no meaningful contacts, ties, or relations. A state may constitutionally assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if the defendant has minimum contact with the state so that maintaining the suit does not offend " traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."
The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state. The defendant must purposely avail itself of the privilege of acting in the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. The defendant's actions in the forum state must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction reasonable. (footnotes and citations omitted).
The First District Court of Appeals in Jentzen, supra , quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985), 471 U.S. 462, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 stated:
'So long as a commercial actor's efforts are " purposefully directed" towards residents of another state, *** an absence of physical contacts can[not] defeat personal jurisdiction there.' Id. at 476, 105 S.Ct. at 2184. When it is determined whether entering into a contract with a forum resident establishes sufficient minimum contacts, it is 'prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of the contract and the parties' actual course of dealing that must be evaluated in determining whether the defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum.' Id. at 479, 105 S.Ct. at 2185.
When personal jurisdiction over a nonresident Defendant is predicated on a single act or transaction, the Court must utilize a three-part test to determine whether it may constitutionally exercise jurisdiction. Cincinnati Art Galleries v. Fatzie , 70 Ohio App.3d 696, 591 N.E.2d 1336, 8 Anderson's Ohio App. Cas. 4 (1st Dist. 1990). This test requires a showing that (1) the nonresident Defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of acting in the forum state or causing a consequence there; (2) the claim arises from the Defendant's activities in the forum state; and (3) the acts of the nonresident Defendant or the consequences caused have a substantial connection with the forum state such that the exercise of jurisdiction over it is reasonable. Jentzen , When the first two prongs of the test are met, an inference in favor of the third element of fairness arises. citing Reliance Electric Co. v. Luecke (S.D. Ohio 1988), 695 F.Supp. 917, 920.
Defendant does not meet this test. Defendant did not avail itself of the privilege of acting in Ohio - when contacted by Plaintiff, it agreed to sell it equipment picked up in Georgia by Plaintiff. Payment was made to Defendant in Georgia. Delivery was to Plaintiff in Georgia. Defendant simply agreed to sell equipment to an Ohio company. This is not enough.
As to the second factor, the claim does not arise from Defendant's activities in Ohio.
Finally, there is no substantial connection with Ohio that would cause the exercise of jurisdiction to be reasonable.
CONCLUSION
This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant. The Complaint as to Atlantic Coastal Equipment is dismissed without prejudice at Plaintiff's cost. Defendant's request for fees is denied.