950 F.2d 526 (8th Cir. 1991), 91-1201, Soo Line R. Co. v. Hawker Siddeley Canada, Inc.

Docket Nº:91-1201, 91-1206.
Citation:950 F.2d 526
Party Name:SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, Appellant, v. HAWKER SIDDELEY CANADA, INC., a Canadian corporation, Appellee. SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, Appellee, v. HAWKER SIDDELEY CANADA, INC., a Canadian corporation, Appellant.
Case Date:December 02, 1991
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 526

950 F.2d 526 (8th Cir. 1991)

SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, Appellant,

v.

HAWKER SIDDELEY CANADA, INC., a Canadian corporation, Appellee.

SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, Appellee,

v.

HAWKER SIDDELEY CANADA, INC., a Canadian corporation, Appellant.

Nos. 91-1201, 91-1206.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

December 2, 1991

Submitted Oct. 16, 1991.

Page 527

Arthur S. Beeman, Minneapolis, Minn., argued (Terrence E. Bishop and Susan M. Kramer, on brief), for appellant Soo Line R. Co.

Raymond A. Hayward, Minneapolis, Minn., argued (Peter W. Sipkins, on brief), for appellee Hawker Siddeley Canada, Inc.

Before McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD R. GIBSON and HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judges.

FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Soo Line Railroad Company ("Soo Line") appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Hawker Siddeley Canada, Incorporated ("Hawker Siddeley"). Hawker Siddeley cross appeals the district court's determination that Hawker Siddeley was subject to the district court's jurisdiction. We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss this suit for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. We also dismiss Soo Line's appeal as moot.

I. BACKGROUND

Hawker Siddeley, a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in Canada, manufactures railroad cars. It has no offices or agents in Minnesota, though it did have a business arrangement with Unity Railway Supply Company ("Unity"), an Illinois corporation. Hawker Siddeley employed Unity to promote Hawker Siddeley's products in the United States and to refer potential customers to Hawker Siddeley's Canadian offices. Unity did not have authority to enter or bid on contracts or quote prices on behalf of Hawker Siddeley. Unity did not refer any Minnesota customers to Hawker Siddeley; in fact, Hawker Siddeley has made only one sale (worth less than $1,000) to a Minnesota purchaser in the last fifteen years. Although there is no precise evidence on this point, Hawker Siddeley concedes it is quite likely that

Page 528

many of its railcars (and wheels) have travelled on tracks in Minnesota.

Hawker Siddeley's cars and wheels are manufactured in compliance with standards established by the Association of American Railroads ("AAR"). 1 All cars used in the interchange service market must comply with AAR standards. "Interchange service" refers to the capacity for railcars to be transferred from one railroad to another. The AAR's standards promote interchange by establishing requirements relating to both standardization and quality of equipment. The market covered by the AAR interchange service agreement is rather large; almost all railroads in Mexico, Canada, and the forty-eight contiguous United States are either members of, or signatories to, the AAR agreement.

In 1979, Hawker Siddeley sold a railcar to a Canadian division of North American Car Corporation ("North American") in Canada. In 1983, North American entered a management and services agreement with General Electric Railcar Services Corporation ("GERASCO"), a Canadian corporation whose principal place of business is in Alberta, Canada, that allowed GERASCO to lease the car on North American's behalf. In June 1984, GERASCO leased the car to...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP