Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 03-2052-GTV
May 6, 2003.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, O.T.W., Inc., a Kansas corporation, brings this action against Defendant, Worldwide Equipment, Inc., a Kentucky corporation, alleging that Defendant was negligent in the sale and titling of several used trucks sold to Plaintiff. The case, originally filed in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, was removed to this court on February 7, 2003. The case is before the court on Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Doc. 4) and Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct discovery regarding Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 10).
For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied and Plaintiff's motion to conduct discovery is denied as moot.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following facts are taken from Plaintiff's complaint and the affidavits and other written materials submitted by the parties. As such, they are either uncontroverted or viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Immaterial facts and facts not properly supported by the record are omitted.
In May 2002, Plaintiff's Vice-President, Robert Frecks, spent two days at Defendant's offices in Cincinnati, Ohio, to negotiate the purchase of several used dump trucks. Following the initial negotiations, Frecks returned to Plaintiff's offices in Kansas City, Kansas, and arranged financing for the trucks with Defendant's representatives. Frecks returned Cincinnati two weeks later and completed the sales and financing, and several drivers who went to Cincinnati with Frecks drove some of the trucks back to Kansas. Frecks instructed Defendant's representatives to confer and work with a company called Independent Carrier Services, located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to transfer titling and handle licensing of the trucks, which Defendant's representatives understood were to be titled and licensed in Oklahoma.
Sometime during the summer of 2002, employees of Defendant drove and delivered two trucks to Plaintiff's offices in Kansas City, Kansas. On approximately July 1, 2002, an employee of Defendant also drove and delivered a trailer to Plaintiff's offices in Kansas. On September 12, 2002, an employee of Defendant returned to Kansas to pick up the same trailer because it was not properly titled.
During the course of these business dealings between the parties, representatives of Defendant had numerous contacts with Frecks via letter, telephone, and facsimile at Plaintiff's offices in Kansas.
III. DISCUSSION
Defendant moves the court to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). In opposing a Rule 12(b)(2) motion, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendant. OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada, 149 F.3d 1086, 1091 (10th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). Where, as here, the court does not hold an evidentiary hearing, and the motion rests on the plaintiff's complaint and affidavits submitted by the parties, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. Id. (citation omitted). "The plaintiff may make this prima facie showing by demonstrating, via affidavit or other written materials, facts that if true would support jurisdiction over the defendant. In order to defeat a plaintiff's prima facie showing of jurisdiction, a defendant must present a compelling case demonstrating `that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.'" Id. (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 477 (1985)) (further citation omitted).
"To obtain personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a diversity action, a plaintiff must show that jurisdiction is legitimate under the laws of the forum state and that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Far West Capital, Inc. v. Towne, 46 F.3d 1071, 1074 (10th Cir. 1995) (emphasis and citation omitted). To determine whether jurisdiction is legitimate under the laws of Kansas, the court looks to the Kansas long-arm statute, K.S.A. § 60-308(b). However, "[b]ecause the Kansas long-arm statute is construed liberally so as to allow jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by due process, [the court] proceed[s] directly to the constitutional issue." Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Corp. v. Kootenai Elec. Coop., 17 F.3d 1302, 1305 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing Volt Delta Res., Inc. v. Devine, 740 P.2d 1089, 1092 (Kan. 1987)).
The due process clause permits the exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant "so long as there exist `minimum contacts' between the defendant and the forum State." World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 (1980) (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). The "minimum contacts" standard may be established by either specific jurisdiction or general jurisdiction. In OMI Holdings, Inc., the Tenth Circuit explained the requirements for establishing specific jurisdiction as follows: Our specific jurisdiction inquiry is two-fold. First, we must determine whether the defendant has such minimum contacts with the forum state "that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 297. Within this inquiry we must determine whether the defendant purposefully directed its activities at residents of the forum, Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 472, and whether the plaintiff's claim arises out of or results from "actions by the defendant himself that create a substantial connection with the forum state." Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102, 109 (1987) (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis in the original). Second if the defendant's actions create sufficient minimum contacts, we must then consider whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant offends "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Id. at 113. This latter inquiry requires a determination of whether a district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant with minimum contacts is "reasonable" in light of the circumstances surrounding the case. See id. 149 F.3d at 1091. A court may maintain general jurisdiction over a defendant based on the defendant's general business contacts with the state. Id. (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415 (1984)). General jurisdiction exists when the defendant's contacts with the forum state are so systematic and continuous that the court may exercise jurisdiction over the defendant even though the claims at issue are unrelated to the defendant's contacts with the state. Id. (citation omitted).
Here, the court concludes that Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to meet the "minimum contacts" requirement to establish specific personal jurisdiction. First, the fact that Defendant's representatives delivered two trucks and a trailer to Plaintiff's Kansas offices and returned once to retrieve the same trailer is sufficient to establish that Defendant purposefully directed its activities at Kansas residents. And although the court notes that "phone calls and letters are not necessarily sufficient in themselves to establish minimum contacts," Far West Capital, Inc., 46 F.3d at 1077, the numerous contacts via letter, telephone, and facsimile that representatives of Defendant allegedly had with Frecks lend further credence to Defendant's purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting business in Kansas. Second, the court determines that Defendant's contacts with Plaintiff and Plaintiff's representatives in Kansas were directly related to Plaintiff's claims in this lawsuit because the contacts concerned the sale of the trucks that Plaintiff contends were negligently sold and titled by Defendant. Finally, the court does not believe that exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendant would offend traditional notions of fair play and justice.
The court notes, but is not persuaded by, Defendant's argument that its contacts with Kansas are unrelated to Plaintiff's claims because it was instructed to coordinate titling of the trucks with an Oklahoma entity. Defendant's argument fails to negate the fact that Plaintiff has alleged negligence in both the titling and sale of the trucks and that Defendant's contacts with Plaintiff and Plaintiff's representatives in Kansas are inextricably intertwined with both of those claims.
Plaintiff also argues that general jurisdiction exists over Defendant as a result of business that Plaintiff contends Defendant does over its internet web site. Plaintiff offered no evidence in its response to Defendant's motion to dismiss regarding the level of use of Defendant's web site by Kansas residents. Nearly a month after filing its response, Plaintiff requested leave to conduct additional discovery on this issue. Because the court has already determined that specific personal jurisdiction exists over Defendant in this case, the court denies as moot Plaintiff's request to conduct additional discovery and declines to address whether general jurisdiction exists over Defendant.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 4) is denied and Plaintiff's motion to conduct discovery (Doc. 10) is denied as moot.
Copies of this order shall be transmitted to counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.