972 F.2d 357 (10th Cir. 1992), 91-5135, United Siding Supply v. Grady Bros., Inc.

• Citation: 972 F.2d 357
• Party Name: UNITED SIDING SUPPLY, an Oklahoma Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GRADY BROTHERS, INC.; and Jack Hoke, Defendants-Appellants, and Randy Grady, Defendant.
• Case Date: July 31, 1992
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)

Page 357

972 F.2d 357 (10th Cir. 1992)

UNITED SIDING SUPPLY, an Oklahoma Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GRADY BROTHERS, INC.; and Jack Hoke, Defendants-Appellants,

and

Randy Grady, Defendant.

No. 91-5135.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

July 31, 1992

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA10 Rule 36.3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

N.D.Okl., No. 90-C-594-C.

N.D.Okl.

AFFIRMED.

Before JOHN P. MOORE, TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT ^[*]

TACHA, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant Jack Hoke appeals from a district court order denying his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, Hoke contends that the district court erred as a matter of law in concluding that it had personal jurisdiction. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

We exercise de novo review over a district court's ruling on a matter of jurisdiction. Rambo v. American Southern Ins. Co., 839 F.2d 1415, 1417 (10th Cir.1988). A district court sitting in diversity determines whether it has in personam jurisdiction by looking to the law of the forum state. Yarbrough v. Elmer Bunker & Assocs., 669 F.2d 614, 616 (10th Cir.1982). Oklahoma law provides that "[a] court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis consistent with the Constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States." Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 12, § 2004(F). Thus, under the Oklahoma statute, it is only necessary to determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with Due Process under the Constitution. Rambo, 839 F.2d at 1416.

The key to this case is whether the plaintiff met its burden in establishing personal jurisdiction under the Constitution. We have stated that

"The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Prior to trial, however, when a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is decided on the basis of affidavits and other written materials, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing. The allegations in the complaint must be taken as...