Access Road Builders v. Christenson Elec. Contracting Engineering Co., 5130-I

Citation19 Wn.App. 477,576 P.2d 71
Decision Date13 March 1978
Docket NumberNo. 5130-I,5130-I
PartiesACCESS ROAD BUILDERS, a Washington Corporation, Appellant, v. CHRISTENSON ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING ENGINEERING COMPANY, an Oregon Corporation, Respondent.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington

Hoover & Donais, John C. Hoover, Auburn, for appellant.

Thom, Navoni, Hoff, Pierson & Ryder, Phillip L. Thom, Dale L. Kingman, Seattle, for respondent.

ANDERSEN, Judge.

FACTS OF CASE

This is an appeal from an order dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Access Road Builders, a Washington corporation (Access), filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County against Christenson Electrical Contracting Engineering Company, an Oregon corporation (Christenson). By its suit, Access sought damages for breach of contract. It alleged that it had a subcontract with Christenson to do work for Christenson in constructing the Bonneville Power Administration's Maple Valley Substation in King County, Washington.

Christenson was served pursuant to the provisions of this state's long-arm statute, RCW 4.28.185. Christenson moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and the trial court determined the motion on affidavits. Two affidavits were filed, one on behalf of Access and the other on behalf of Christenson.

The affidavit of Access' president said in part:

My company came in contract (sic ) with the defendants by telephone calls, and there were a number of telephone calls from Portland, Oregon to my office at 2135 M Street Southeast, Auburn, Washington, requesting that I bid on a project, which project was to, and did, take place in King County, State of Washington. The project of which I was to bid on involved the Maple Street (sic ) substation, and I enclose copies of the invitation to bid. At the request of defendants, I submitted bid figures and those bid figures were used by defendant in bidding the project.

The invitation to bid attached to that affidavit contained Bonneville's Portland, Oregon office address in block 5 of the first page of the form. Then in block 6 of the form, it also provided:

6. ADMINISTERED BY (if other than block 5)

Branch of Construction

J. D. Ross Complex

P. O. Box 491

Vancouver, Washington 98660

The affidavit of Christenson's supervisor related: Christenson's dealings with Bonneville were with Bonneville's Portland, Oregon office; Christenson had not solicited a proposal from Access but received one by phone a few days prior to the Portland bid openings; Christenson was successful in obtaining the Bonneville contract; although he had discussed the bid with the president of Access, who was in Portland for the bid opening, no contract was finalized between Christenson and Access; during the month following the bid opening, he placed a number of calls to the president of Access concerning some unresolved matters relating to the construction work under discussion, and some of which calls were not returned; neither he nor any other person from Christenson had any meeting with Access personnel in the State of Washington; and Christenson received notice from Bonneville to proceed with work on the Maple Valley project a little over a month following the bid openings and thereupon started work through a subcontractor other than Access.

Christenson's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was granted by the trial court. Access appeals. One issue is presented.

ISSUE

Under the facts shown, should the Washington courts assume jurisdiction over a foreign corporation on the basis that such corporation had the necessary "minimum contacts" within this state to establish jurisdiction here?

DECISION

CONCLUSION. Based on the uncontroverted facts presented, the jurisdictional power to adjudicate the issues between the parties exists in the Washington courts.

Our long-arm statute provides:

Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts in this section enumerated, thereby submits said person . . . to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of said acts:

(a) The transaction of any business within this state;

RCW 4.28.185(1) (part). There has been a considerable amount of litigation under this statute. See P. Trautman, Long-Arm and Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction in Washington, 51 Wash.L.Rev. 1 (1975-1976).

The test for assuming jurisdiction under this statute has recently been summarized. After discussing the constitutional necessity of a nonresident having certain "minimal contacts" with the forum state, the court reiterated the following rules:

(1) The nonresident defendant or foreign corporation must purposefully do some act or consummate some transaction in the forum state; (2) the cause of action must arise from, or be connected with, such act or transaction; and (3) the assumption of jurisdiction by the forum state must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, consideration being given to the quality, nature and extent of the activity in the forum state, the relative convenience of the parties, the benefits and protection of the laws of the forum state afforded the respective parties, and the basic equities of the situation. Deutsch v. West Coast Mach. Co., 80 Wash.2d 707, 497 P.2d 1311 (1972); Bowen v. Bateman, 76 Wash.2d 567, 458 P.2d 269 (1969); Tyee Constr. Co. v. Dulien Steel Prods., Inc., 62 Wash.2d 106, 381 P.2d 245 (1963).

Lewis v. Curry College, 89 Wash.2d 565, 568-69, 573 P.2d 1312, 1314 (1978).

The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of establishing it if the jurisdictional allegations are appropriately challenged. Williams v. Canadian Fishing Co., 8 Wash.App. 765, 767, 509 P.2d 64 (1973); Taylor v. Portland Paramount Corp., 383 F.2d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 1967). Lack of jurisdiction can, of course, be raised by motion. CR 12(b). If, as here, matters outside the pleadings are received by the trial court in connection with such a motion then the motion will be treated as one for summary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State v. LG Elecs., Inc.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • January 12, 2015
    ...the existence of two cases from the electric typewriter era that indicate to the contrary. Access Rd. Builders v. Christenson Elec. Contracting Eng'g Co., 19 Wash.App. 477, 576 P.2d 71 (1978) (Division One), and Puget Sound Bulb Exch. v. Metal Bldgs. Insulation Inc., 9 Wash.App. 284, 513 P.......
  • Beaman v. Yakima Valley Disposal, Inc.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • April 4, 1991
    ...v. Lasher, 48 Wash.App. 373, 376, 739 P.2d 712, review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1005 (1987); Access Road Builders v. Christenson Elec. Contracting Eng'g Co., 19 Wash.App. 477, 481, 576 P.2d 71 (1978). Valley has the burden of showing at least an arguable case that state jurisdiction is preempted......
  • State v. LG Elecs., Inc., 91391–9
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • July 21, 2016
    ...; Carrigan v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd. , 60 Wash.App. 79, 83 n. 3, 802 P.2d 813 (1990) ; Access Rd. Builders v. Christenson Elec. Contracting Eng'g Co. , 19 Wash.App. 477, 481, 576 P.2d 71 (1978) ; Puget Sound Bulb Exch. v. Metal Bldgs. Insulation, Inc. , 9 Wash.App. 284, 288–89, 513 P.2d 102 ......
  • State v. LG Elecs., Inc., 70298-0-I
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • January 12, 2015
    ...cases from the electric typewriter era that indicate to the contrary. Access Rd. Builders v. Christenson Elec. Contracting Enq'q Co., 19 Wn. App. 477, 576 P.2d 71 (1978) (Division One), and Puqet Sound Bulb Exch. v. Metal Bldgs. Insulation Inc., 9 Wn. App. 284, 513 P.2d 102 (1973) (Division......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • §56.6 Analysis
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Civil Procedure Deskbook (WSBA) Chapter 56 Rule 56.Summary Judgment
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Metal Buildings Insulation, Inc., 415 U.S. 921 (1974); andAccess Road Builders v. Christensen Electrical Contracting Engineering Co., 19 Wn.App. 477,481,576P.2d71 (1978). Both cases involved motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (CR 12(b) (2)) under the "long-arm" statute, RCW 4.28......

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