Columbia Petroleum, Inc. v. Waddell
| Decision Date | 23 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-4031-CV-C-5.,87-4031-CV-C-5. |
| Citation | 680 F. Supp. 1348 |
| Parties | COLUMBIA PETROLEUM, INC., Plaintiff, v. Eric F. WADDELL, d/b/a Western Kansas Geomagnetics, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
F. Russell Millin, Stephen B. Millin, Jr., Wilkins & Millin, P.C., Kansas City, Mo., Tweedie Fisher, Jefferson City, Mo., for plaintiff.
Michael F. Saunders, Joseph J. Kelly, Jr., Kansas City, Mo., Jeffery A. Shadwick, Spencer, Fane, Britt & Browne, Wichita, Kan., for Eric Waddell.
Pending before the Court is defendant Eric F. Waddell's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the following reasons, this motion is denied.
In March, 1980, the plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement for defendant Waddell to make and forward to Columbia geology reports and structure maps regarding several land sites located in the State of Kansas. In these reports, defendant Waddell represented to plaintiff Columbia that a reasonable probability existed that oil in commercial quantities would be discovered on the land described in the respective geology reports and structure maps. The plaintiff Columbia alleges that these reports were drafted as a result of fraud or negligence and that the plaintiff suffered damage in reliance on these reports.
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for involuntary dismissal of the complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." In construing this rule, the courts have been reluctant to dismiss a complaint and, therefore, are more inclined to treat pleadings liberally. Orlando v. Alamo, 646 F.2d 1288, 1289 (8th Cir.1981). However, where it is obvious from the face of the complaint that the statute of limitations has run, an action is properly subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Guy v. Swift & Co., 612 F.2d 383, 385 (8th Cir. 1980).
The defendant Waddell claims that the two-year Kansas Statute of Limitations, K.S.A. 60-513, applies to this cause of action, thereby barring consideration by this Court. After carefully considering the law on this issue, the Court is persuaded that the Missouri statute of limitations applies.
It is well-settled that in ruling on statute of limitations questions, a federal court must apply the law of the forum. Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 108-09, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 1469-70, 89 L.Ed. 2079 (1945). Missouri considers statute of limitation issues to be procedural and, therefore, governed by Missouri law. Renfroe v. Eli Lilly & Co., 686 F.2d 642, 646 (8th Cir.1982). The Missouri statute of limitations controlling in this case is the five-year limitation period outlined in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120.
The defendant, however, argues that this action is barred by the Missouri borrowing statute of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.190. This statute provides that:
whenever a cause of action has been fully barred by the laws of the state, territory or country in which it originated, said bar shall be a complete defense to any action thereon, brought in any of the courts of this state.
Based on this statute, it becomes clear that the initial inquiry is whether or not the Kansas statute of limitations applies because if it does, the Missouri borrowing statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.190, would bar this action.
In the case of Kennedy v. Dixon, 439 S.W.2d 173, 184 (Mo.1969) (en banc), the Missouri Supreme Court adopted the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145 (1971) for determining the substantive law to be applied in tort cases. Section 145 provides:
In applying these factors to the case at bar, it seems that Missouri has the most significant relationship to the occurrence. The comments to the Restatement (Second) indicate that "... when a person in State X writes a letter about the plaintiff which is received by a person in State Y, the local law of Y, the state where the publication occurred, will govern most issues involving the tort...." Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145 comment e (1971). By analogy to the letter situation, it is evident that the report drafted in Kansas, but sent to Missouri, would lead to the conclusion that the injury occurred in Missouri.
Restatement factors (b) and (c) are not as conclusive in this case. It seems that the conduct causing the injury occurred in Kansas; and it is undisputed that the business of the defendant is in Kansas and that of the plaintiff is in Missouri. Factor (d), however, tips the scales back in favor of applying Missouri law. It is clear that the relationship between the parties is centered in Missouri. Missouri is the state from which the plaintiff made the agreement with the defendant, and the State to which the final geology reports and structure maps were sent. Therefore, it is the conclusion of this Court that Missouri Statute of limitations law shall apply to this action and the borrowing statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.190, will not be invoked to bar this action.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Millsaps v. McKee
...with "parental alienation." Federal courts sitting in diversity apply the forum's statute of limitations. Columbia Petrol., Inc. v. Waddell, 680 F. Supp. 1348, 1350 (W.D. Mo. 1987). In Missouri the statute of limitations for malpractice and negligence claims against health care providers is......
-
Stricker v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.
...is properly subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Columbia Petroleum, Inc. v. Waddell, 680 F.Supp. 1348, 1349 (W.D. Mo. 1987). The Court generally may not consider matters outside the pleadings when deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion. That said, “......
-
Counts v. MK-Ferguson Co.
... ... Cotton Oil Company, bought the facility from Southeast Oil Mill, Inc., on or about December 30, 1946. Buckeye purchased the property to operate ... ...