Valspar Corp. v. Lukken Color Corp.

Decision Date24 December 1992
Docket NumberNo. C0-91-1015,C0-91-1015
PartiesVALSPAR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Petitioner, Appellant, v. LUKKEN COLOR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Respondent.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. Personal jurisdiction pursuant to the Minnesota long-arm statute extends as far as the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution allows, and Minn.Stat. § 543.19, subd. 3, does not place more restrictive limits on the exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants by Minnesota courts than those of the United States Constitution.

2. If a court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident for purposes of one contract, it also has jurisdiction over the nonresident for purposes of related contracts.

3. In a close case, trial courts should resolve doubts in favor of retention of personal jurisdiction.

Kent G. Harbison, Richard D. Snyder, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Minneapolis, for petitioner, appellant.

Edward J. Pluimer, Dorsey & Whitney, Minneapolis, and John Timbers, Stamford, CT, for respondent.

Heard and decided by the court en banc.

TOMLJANOVICH, Justice.

We are asked to decide the reach of the Minnesota long-arm statute, Minn.Stat. § 543.19 (1990). Specifically, we must decide whether Minn.Stat. § 543.19, subd. 3 curtails the power of Minnesota courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to a greater extent than the restrictions placed on its exercise by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. We hold that it does not.

Appellant Valspar Corporation ("Valspar") is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Minneapolis. It manufactures paint and other coating and staining products. Respondent Lukken Color Corporation ("Lukken") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Greenwich, Connecticut.

In September 1988, Lukken approached the McCloskey Corporation ("McCloskey") in hopes that McCloskey could be persuaded to license its water-based wood stain formula. McCloskey is a Pennsylvania corporation with headquarters in Philadelphia; it sells paints, stains and other products. McCloskey expressed interest in marketing Lukken's formula. Lukken agreed to disclose the formula to McCloskey if McCloskey signed a confidentiality agreement in which it promised it would not use the information Lukken disclosed to it for any reason other than technical or marketing evaluation. This confidentiality agreement had a five year term. In November 1988, Lukken and McCloskey entered into an option agreement that incorporated the prior confidentiality agreement. For purposes of this opinion, we refer to this agreement incorporating the prior confidentiality agreement as the "McCloskey-Lukken agreement." This agreement contained a clause requiring that any disputes pursuant to it be arbitrated in Connecticut.

In January 1989, McCloskey informed Lukken that the negotiations regarding licensure of the woodstaining formula would have to stop because Valspar might be purchasing McCloskey. In addition, McCloskey told Lukken that it had already disclosed some of Lukken's confidential information to Valspar as a potential asset.

Lukken quickly wrote Valspar's St. Paul headquarters to inquire if Valspar might be interested in licensing Lukken's woodstaining formula. Along with the letter, Lukken sent a confidentiality agreement for Valspar's signature. Valspar eventually did sign a confidentiality agreement with Lukken, but not until August 1989 (the "Valspar-Lukken agreement"). The signed agreement is similar to the McCloskey-Lukken agreement; a notable difference is that, unlike the McCloskey-Lukken agreement, it does not contain an arbitration clause.

In the summer of 1989, Valspar purchased McCloskey's assets as contemplated. In July 1989, Lukken representatives traveled to Minneapolis to present Lukken's formula and licensing proposal to Valspar officials. After the sales presentation, Valspar executives informed the Lukken representatives that Valspar was no longer interested in licensing the formula.

In 1990, Valspar began marketing a new line of water-based stains. Lukken contacted Valspar, claiming that the new line was based on Lukken's confidential formula. Lukken threatened to sue Valspar, unless Valspar agreed to pay Lukken for the use of the formula. In response to the threat of litigation, Valspar brought these declaratory judgment actions, asking the trial court to declare that Valspar had neither misappropriated Lukken's formula nor breached the McCloskey-Lukken or Valspar-Lukken agreements.

Lukken mounted a two-pronged defense. It demanded that the matter be arbitrated in Connecticut, pursuant to the provision in the McCloskey-Lukken agreement, requesting both injunctive relief and damages against Valspar. Lukken also brought a motion pursuant to Rule 12.02(b) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure requesting that both declaratory judgment actions be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. In the alternative, Lukken asked the court to issue an order compelling the Connecticut arbitration.

The trial court denied Lukken's motion to dismiss Valspar's declaratory judgment action regarding Valspar-Lukken agreement. It reasoned that, in negotiating the agreement, Lukken officials had contacted Valspar's headquarters in Minnesota. Later, Lukken officials had traveled to Minnesota in order to promote Lukken's woodstaining formula to Valspar officials. The court ruled that these contacts provided an adequate basis for personal jurisdiction over Lukken for purposes of the declaratory judgment action on the Valspar-Lukken agreement.

However, the trial court dismissed Valspar's declaratory judgment action on the Lukken-McCloskey agreement, ruling that Minnesota did not have personal jurisdiction over Lukken for purposes of this agreement. It reasoned that when the contract was formed neither McCloskey nor Lukken had any contacts with Minnesota. Thus no contacts tied the contract to Minnesota or provided a basis for a Minnesota court to adjudicate the parties' rights pursuant to it.

The court also ruled that the Valspar-Lukken agreement had not been breached as a matter of law, construing statements of Lukken's attorneys as concessions that Valspar had not breached it. Finally, instead of ordering that the arbitration proceed in Connecticut as Lukken had requested, the trial judge permanently stayed it.

Both parties appealed. The court of appeals, in an unpublished decision, affirmed with one exception. It ruled that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to stay the arbitration because it had dismissed the declaratory judgment action on the McCloskey-Lukken agreement which contained the compulsory arbitration clause. Valspar appealed to this court.

I.

Minnesota Statute § 543.19 sets forth when Minnesota courts may take jurisdiction over nonresident defendants. The relevant provisions read:

Subdivision 1. As to a cause of action arising from any acts enumerated in this subdivision, a court of this state with jurisdiction of the subject matter may exercise personal jurisdiction over any foreign corporation * * * in the same manner as if it were a domestic corporation * * *. This section applies if * * * through an agent, the foreign corporation * * *:

* * * * * *

(b) Transacts any business within the state * * *.

* * * * * *

Subd. 3. Only causes of action arising from acts enumerated in subdivision 1 may be asserted against a defendant in an action in which jurisdiction over the defendant is based upon this section.

This court has...

To continue reading

Request your trial
104 cases
  • Bandemer v. Ford Motor Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • July 31, 2019
    ...jurisdiction of Minnesota courts as far as the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution allows." Valspar Corp. v. Lukken Color Corp. , 495 N.W.2d 408, 410–11 (Minn. 1992). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the ability of a state to exercise its coercive power b......
  • ProtéGé Biomedical, LLC v. Z-Medica, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • July 24, 2019
    ...is consistent with due process." Pope v. Elabo GmbH , 588 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 1014 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Valspar Corp. v. Lukken Color Corp. , 495 N.W.2d 408, 410-11 (Minn. 1992) ). Due process requires that a defendant has "purposefully established ‘minimum contacts’ in the forum State." B......
  • State v. Aktiengesellschaft
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • December 3, 2018
    ...v. Crompton Corp., 680 N.W.2d 574, 577 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept. 21, 2004); see also Valspar Corp. v. Lukken Color Corp., 495 N.W.2d 408, 411 (Minn. 1992) ("If the personal jurisdiction requirements of the federal constitution are met, the requirements of [Minnesota's] l......
  • Zumbro, Inc. v. California Natural Products
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • August 8, 1994
    ...543.19 subd. 1(b) (1992), to extend personal jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted by due process,8 see Valspar Corp. v. Lukken Color Corp., 495 N.W.2d 408, 411 (Minn.1992), "the inquiry collapses into a single question of whether exercising personal jurisdiction in this case comport......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT