966 F.2d 1247 (8th Cir. 1992), 91-3176, Jarvis and Sons, Inc. v. Freeport Shipbuilding and Marine Repair, Inc.
|Citation:||966 F.2d 1247|
|Party Name:||JARVIS AND SONS, INC., a Minnesota corporation, Appellant, v. FREEPORT SHIPBUILDING AND MARINE REPAIR, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.|
|Case Date:||June 10, 1992|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit|
Submitted May 12, 1992.
John G. Westrick, St. Paul, Minn., argued, for appellant.
Patricia Anne O'Leary, Minneapolis, Minn., argued (Wayne G. Popham, on the brief), for appellee.
Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.
Jarvis & Sons, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, appeals from a final order entered in the District Court 1 for the District of Minnesota dismissing its complaint against Freeport Shipbuilding & Marine Repair, Inc., a Florida corporation, for lack of personal jurisdiction. Jarvis & Sons, Inc. v. Freeport Shipbuilding & Marine Repair, Inc., Civil No. 4-91-307 (D.Minn. Aug. 12, 1991) (judgment). For reversal plaintiff argues the district court erred in dismissing its complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction because defendant had demonstrated an intent to serve the market in the forum state and had entered into a related contract with a local firm. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the order of the district court.
The facts are not disputed. In December 1989 plaintiff contacted defendant and solicited a bid on the construction of a vessel for sightseeing cruises on the St. Croix River along the Minnesota-Wisconsin border. Defendant submitted a bid proposal by facsimile transmission (fax). Plaintiff eventually decided to modify an existing vessel for sightseeing rather than construct a new one; in April 1990 plaintiff bought a suitable vessel in New York. In May 1990, after additional telephone calls and faxes, plaintiff and defendant executed in Florida a contract for the modification of the vessel. Plaintiff delivered the vessel to defendant's yard in Florida, and the work proceeded. In July 1990 plaintiff became dissatisfied with defendant's work (there
were disputes about cost overruns and work delays) and removed the vessel to Minnesota. The Coast Guard in Minnesota found the vessel did not comply with certain stability regulations and refused to certify it for its intended use. In an attempt to settle the dispute, defendant hired a Minnesota naval engineering firm, Marine Technology, Inc., at its own expense, to...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP