CPC-Rexcell, Inc. v. La Corona Foods, Inc., CPC-REXCEL

Citation912 F.2d 241
Decision Date21 August 1990
Docket NumberINC,No. 90-1131EM,CPC-REXCEL,90-1131EM
Parties, Appellant, v. LA CORONA FOODS, INC., Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

Paula M. Young, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

William J. Travis, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

Before ARNOLD and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges, and HANSON, * Senior District Judge.

HANSON, Senior District Judge.

CPC-Rexcell, Inc. appeals from a final order entered in the District Court 1 for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissing the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

CPC-Rexcell, a plastic products manufacturing company, is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Missouri. La Corona Foods, a yogurt products processor and distributor, is an Arizona corporation. CPC-Rexcell served La Corona with process pursuant to the Missouri long-arm statute, Mo.Rev.Stat. Sec. 506.500(1) (1986), asserting that appellee was transacting business or forming contracts within the meaning of the statute. La Corona Foods responds that it committed no acts which satisfy this statute, nor does it have any contacts, ties, or other relations that would render personal jurisdiction constitutionally permissible in this action. The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, 726 F.Supp. 754, and this appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION

CPC-Rexcell made yogurt containers for La Corona. The initial contacts for the agreement were made in Arizona and California. The defendant's contacts with the State of Missouri consisted of numerous telephone and telefax orders to plaintiff's St. Louis office to purchase $1.7 million worth of goods, and defendant's payment by mail to a St. Louis lock box. There was also some evidence that a sample of rejected goods were sent to St. Louis, but all other nonconforming goods were shipped either to Arizona or California. La Corona had no authority to do business in Missouri, no office, agent, or real property in the state, and there were no personal visits there. All paper work was processed in St. Louis, but the products were actually shipped from North Carolina to Arizona and California warehouses. Any problems in the shipment or manufacture of the goods were managed by CPC-Rexcell personnel in Arizona or California.

Whether personal jurisdiction is proper requires a two-part inquiry. First, this court must examine whether personal jurisdiction under Missouri's long-arm statute exists. Second, it must be established that the exercise of personal jurisdiction is consistent with due process. See Precision Construction Co. v. J.A. Slattery Co., 765 F.2d 114, 115 (8th Cir.1985).

The relevant statute states in part that:

any * * * corporation, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this section, thereby submits such * * * corporation * * * to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to a cause of action arising from the doing of any such acts:

(1) The transaction of any business within this state; * * *

(2) The making of any contract within this state; * * *.

Mo.Rev.Stat. Sec. 506.500 (1986).

This statute was considered by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Scullin Steel v. National Railway Utilization Corp., 676 F.2d 309 (8th Cir.1982). In that case the court found no jurisdiction when the only contacts with the forum state were payments sent to St. Louis and an exchange of letters and telephone calls. The court held that these contacts were not "transactions" within the meaning of the statute nor did they satisfy traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. See id. at 312-13.

At the time of Scullin Steel, no Missouri case directly addressed this issue. In 1984, however, the Missouri Supreme Court decided State ex rel. Metal Service Center of Georgia, Inc. v. Gaertner, 677 S.W.2d 325 (Mo.1984) (en banc). Without contradicting Scullin Steel the Gaertner court found that the statute should be broadly construed but within the bounds of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 327.

Jurisdiction is proper where there is a substantial and continuing relationship purposefully made with a party in the forum state, see Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183-84, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985), so long as "maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).

Appel...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • SII MegaDiamond, Inc. v. American Superabrasives Corp.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • October 20, 1998
    ...persons or businesses within the State of Utah." Synergetics, 701 P.2d at 1110. Nonetheless, ASC relies on CPC-Rexcell, Inc. v. La Corona Foods, Inc., 912 F.2d 241, 242 (8th Cir.1990), to argue that fax and telephone orders cannot establish minimum contacts. In that case, the court found th......
  • Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • August 19, 1996
    ...consistent with due process. Bell Paper Box, Inc. v. U.S. Kids, Inc., 22 F.3d 816, 818-19 (8th Cir.1994); CPC-Rexcell, Inc., v. La Corona Foods, Inc., 912 F.2d 241, 243 (8th Cir.1990). In considering a motion under Rule 12(b)(2), the Court views the facts in a light most favorable to plaint......
  • Wiese v. Legend Air Suspensions, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • September 19, 2012
    ...to the sale and maintenance of the motorcycle, are insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. See CPC–Rexcell, Inc. v. La Corona Foods, Inc., 912 F.2d 241, 242–44 (8th Cir.1990) (finding “numerous telephone and telefax orders” to the forum state to purchase $1.7 million worth of goods......
  • Uncle Sam's Safari Outfitters v. Uncle Sam's Army
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • April 13, 2000
    ...The court must first examine whether personal jurisdiction exists under Missouri's long-arm statute. CPC-Rexcell, Inc. v. La Corona Foods, Inc., 912 F.2d 241, 243 (8th Cir.1990). If so, the court must determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is consistent with the Due Process......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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