Crete Carrier Corp. v. Red Food Stores, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 March 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. S-96-1211,I,BI-L,S-96-1211 |
| Citation | 576 N.W.2d 760,254 Neb. 323 |
| Parties | CRETE CARRIER CORPORATION, Appellant, v. RED FOOD STORES, INC., andnc., Appellees. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Judgments: Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. When a jurisdictional question does not involve a factual dispute, determination of a jurisdictional issue is a matter of law which requires an appellate court to reach a conclusion independent from the trial court's; however, when the determination rests on factual findings, a trial court's decision on the issue will be upheld unless the factual findings concerning jurisdiction are clearly incorrect.
2. Jurisdiction: Proof. The burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff confronted with a special appearance to demonstrate a court's personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
3. Due Process: Jurisdiction: States. Before a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, the court must determine, first, whether the long-arm statute is satisfied and, if the long-arm statute is satisfied, second, whether minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum state for personal jurisdiction over the defendant without offending due process.
4. Constitutional Law: Jurisdiction. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-536(2) (Reissue 1995) expressly extends Nebraska's jurisdiction over 5. Constitutional Law: Due Process. The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful contacts, ties, or relations.
nonresidents as far as the U.S. Constitution permits.
6. Due Process: Jurisdiction: States. In order to subject an out-of-state defendant to personal jurisdiction in a forum court, due process requires that the defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum state so as not to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
7. Due Process: Jurisdiction: States. The benchmark for determining if the exercise of personal jurisdiction satisfies due process is whether the defendant's minimum contacts with the forum state are such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.
8. Due Process: Jurisdiction: States. In determining whether a defendant has the necessary minimum contacts with a forum state to satisfy due process, the unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with the nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state.
9. Due Process: Jurisdiction. Due process does not require a defendant's physical presence in a forum before personal jurisdiction is exercised.
10. Jurisdiction: States: Contracts: Parties. A contract with a party in a forum state does not, in and of itself, provide the necessary contacts for personal jurisdiction in the forum state.
11. Jurisdiction. The mere use of interstate facilities, such as telephones, mail, or facsimile machines, is not enough to confer jurisdiction.
12. Jurisdiction. Mail and telephone communications sent by a defendant into a forum may count toward the minimum contacts that support jurisdiction.
13. Jurisdiction: States: Contracts: Parties. When dealing with contracts, it is the prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of the contract and the parties' actual course of dealing, that must be evaluated in determining whether a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts necessary for personal jurisdiction within a forum.
14. Jurisdiction: States. In considering whether it is fair to assert jurisdiction over a defendant, a court may consider the burden on the defendant, the interest of the forum state, the plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief, the judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, and the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.
15. Jurisdiction. Where a defendant who purposefully has directed his activities at forum residents seeks to defeat jurisdiction, he must present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.
David L. Brown, Lincoln, for appellant.
Andrew S. Pollock, of Knudsen, Berkheimer, Richardson, Endacott and Routh, Lincoln, for appellees.
The appellant, Crete Carrier Corporation, appeals the district court's sustaining of the special appearance objecting to personal jurisdiction entered by the appellees, Red Food Stores, Inc., and BI-LO, Inc. The district court concluded that Red Food Stores' and BI-LO's contacts were insufficient to subject them to personal jurisdiction. We conclude that in the instant case, numerous telephone and mail communications made pursuant to an ongoing and long-term contract are sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.
Crete Carrier is a common carrier, incorporated in Nebraska, with its principal place of business in Lincoln. BI-LO is a Delaware Following BI-LO's purchase of Red Food Stores, all requests for Crete Carrier to transport products for Red Food Stores pursuant to the contract were initiated by employees of Red Food Stores and made to employees of Crete Carrier in Nebraska. Following shipment, Red Food Stores would again contact Crete Carrier's Nebraska office to verify that shipment had been completed. All billings for services performed by Crete Carrier originated in Nebraska, and payment for those services was sent to Nebraska. Likewise, claims made by Red Food Stores for cargo damage were presented to, and paid by, Crete Carrier employees in Nebraska. Between October 1, 1994, and September 30, 1996, Crete Carrier hauled 1,386 loads for Red Food Stores pursuant to the contract. As a result, Red Food Stores contacted Crete Carrier a minimum of 2,772 times during that period. Red Food Stores and BI-LO do not own property in Nebraska, have not had any business locations in Nebraska, have not advertised in Nebraska, have not paid taxes in Nebraska, and have never authorized an agent to accept service of process in Nebraska.
corporation, with its principal place of business in Mauldin, South Carolina. BI-LO purchased appellee Red Food Stores in March 1994 and assumed all of Red Food Stores' [254 Neb. 325] debts and liabilities. In June 1991, Red Food Stores entered into a transportation contract with Crete Carrier. The contract stated it would continue in force until canceled and was still in effect as of September 30, 1996. Under the contract, Red Food Stores agreed to indemnify and hold Crete Carrier harmless from any liability or expense for personal injury that resulted from Red Foods Stores' negligence. The record is unclear regarding how the contract was negotiated and which party solicited the contract. Red Food Stores and BI-LO state that they never negotiated the contract in Nebraska or sent a representative to Nebraska. However, the contract was required to be approved by Crete Carrier's marketing division in Nebraska.
In June 1992, a driver employed by Crete Carrier was injured while unloading a truck at a Red Food Stores warehouse in Tennessee. As a result, Crete Carrier paid workers' compensation benefits to the driver. In June 1996, Crete Carrier filed the instant action against Red Food Stores and BI-LO, alleging that the driver's injuries were caused by Red Food Stores' and BI-LO's negligence and that Red Food Stores and BI-LO breached the 1991 contract by refusing to indemnify Crete Carrier for the workers' compensation payments. Red Food Stores and BI-LO entered a special appearance in order to object to personal jurisdiction. The district court concluded that the sole contacts of Red Food Stores and BI-LO to the State of Nebraska were placing of telephone orders or instructions, being billed from Nebraska, remitting payments to Crete Carrier's Nebraska office, and other contacts resulting from a variety of paperwork generated through Crete Carrier's office. The court then determined that such contacts were not sufficient to subject Red Food Stores and BI-LO to the jurisdiction of the court. The district court further concluded that considering the nature of the action and the location where the negligence occurred, it would be burdensome, inefficient, and illogical to litigate the matter in Nebraska.
Crete Carrier assigns that the district court erred in (1) concluding that Red Food Stores' and BI-LO's contacts with Nebraska were insufficient to subject them to the personal jurisdiction of the court and (2) concluding that it would be unduly burdensome upon Red Food Stores and BI-LO to compel them to litigate the action in Nebraska.
When a jurisdictional question does not involve a factual dispute, determination of a jurisdictional issue is a matter of law which requires an appellate court to reach a conclusion independent from the trial court's; however, when the determination rests on factual findings, a trial court's decision on the issue will be upheld unless the factual findings concerning jurisdiction are clearly incorrect. Crystal Clear Optical v. Silver, 247 Neb. 981, 531 N.W.2d 535 (1995).
The burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff confronted with a special appearance to demonstrate the court's personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Id.
Crete Carrier contends that Red Food Stores' and BI-LO's activities are such that they have sufficient minimum contacts with Nebraska for the district court to assert personal jurisdiction over them. In particular, Crete Carrier argues that the years of continuous business dealings between Red Food Stores and Crete Carrier, the contract between the companies, and the minimum of 2,772 communications by Red Food Stores to Crete Carrier in Nebraska serve...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holste v. Burlington Northern R. Co.
...are clearly incorrect. In re Interest of Kelley D. & Heather D., 256 Neb. 465, 590 N.W.2d 392 (1999); Crete Carrier Corp. v. Red Food Stores, 254 Neb. 323, 576 N.W.2d 760 (1998). The standard of review of a trial court's determination of a request for sanctions is whether the trial court ab......
-
Quality Pork Intern. v. RUPARI FOOD SVCS.
...and the forum, allowing a court to exercise personal jurisdiction without offending due process. See, Crete Carrier Corp. v. Red Food Stores, 254 Neb. 323, 576 N.W.2d 760 (1998); Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-536 (Reissue 1995). The long-arm statute expressly extends Nebraska's jurisdiction over nonre......
-
N. Sails Grp., LLC v. Bds. & More GMBH
...flourish) or negative (should the foreign corporation breach the contract). See, e.g., Crete Carrier Corp . v. Red Food Stores, Inc ., 254 Neb. 323, 325, 331–32, 576 N.W.2d 760 (1998) (finding sufficient minimum contacts under Burger King when parties had engaged for five years in open-ende......
-
Castle Rose, Inc. v. Philadelphia Bar and Grill of Arizona, Inc.
...to reach a conclusion independent from the trial court's conclusion on the jurisdictional issue. See, Crete Carrier Corp. v. Red Food Stores, 254 Neb. 323, 576 N.W.2d 760 (1998); Becker v. Nebraska Acct. & Disclosure Comm., 249 Neb. 28, 541 N.W.2d 36 (1995); Chrysler Corp. v. Lee Janssen Mo......
-
What's So Special About Special Proceedings? Making Sense of Nebraska's Final Order Statute
...Midwest Entm't, Inc., 2 Neb. Ct. App. 969, 973, 520 N.W.2d 216, 220 (1994). 190. See, e.g., Crete Carrier Corp. v. Red Food Stores, Inc., 254 Neb. 323, 328, 576 N.W.2d 760, 764 (1998). 191. State v. Jacques, 253 Neb. 247, 253, 570 N.W.2d 331, 335 (1997). 192. 256 Neb. 713, 592 N.W.2d 894 (1......