Opinion
Case No. 2:03-CV-615
December 5, 2003
Justin R. Olsen, Nathan D Ashcraft, OLSEN SKOUBYE NIELSON, LLC, Sandy, Utah, for Plaintiff
Heinz. J. Mahler, KIPP AND CHRISTIAN P.C. Salt Lake City UT for defendant Canal Insurance Company
Justin R. Olsen, OLSEN, SKOUBYE NIELSON, LLC, Sandy, UT for plaintiff Tag Co., Inc.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
On the 20th day of October, 2003 at 3:00 p.m., defendant Canal Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction came on for hearing and oral argument before the Court. The Court having reviewed the memoranda in support of and in opposition to such Motion and having heard the oral arguments of counsel for defendant Canal Insurance Company and plaintiff Tag Co. Inc. found and rules as follows:
1. Since plaintiff Tag Co. Inc.'s ("Tagco") cause(s) of action against defendant Canal Insurance Company ("Canal") do not arise out of Canal's activities within the State of Utah, an analysis of "general jurisdiction" is appropriate.
2. Weighing the factors relevant to the exercise of general personal jurisdiction as set forth in Soma Medical Int'l v. Standard Chartered Bank 196 F.3d 1292, 1296-96 (10th Cir. 1999) (quotingBuddensick v. Statcline Hotel Inc., 972 P.2d 928, 930-31 (Utah Ct. App. 1998)), the Court finds that Canal is and has for a substantial period of time been licensed to do business within the State of Utah and is, in fact, engaged in business within the State of Utah. Defendant Canal derives substantial revenues as a result of its business activities in the State of Utah and maintains a website accessible in the State of Utah that is not completely passive in nature as far as interactivity and the commercial nature of the exchange of information.
3. The Court therefore finds that defendant Canal's activities within the State of Utah rise to a level of substantial and continuous. As such, the exercise of personal jurisdiction by this Court over defendant Canal comports with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
4. Accordingly, defendant Canal's Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is hereby denied.
5. Pursuant to Rule 12(a)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant Canal shall file an answer or responsive pleading to plaintiff Tagco's Complaint within ten (10) days from entry of this Order.