Dave's Trash Removal v. Charm City Equipment Corp.

• Decision Date: 10 December 1986
• Citation: 214 N.J.Super. 497,520 A.2d 415
• Parties: DAVE'S TRASH REMOVAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARM CITY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 497

214 N.J.Super. 497

520 A.2d 415

DAVE'S TRASH REMOVAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARM CITY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant-Respondent.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Dec. 10, 1986.

Decided Jan. 20, 1987.

Christopher H. Riley, Jr., Millville, for plaintiff-appellant (Cynthia J. Burnside, on the brief).

Megargee, Youngblood, Franklin & Corcoran, Pleasantville, for defendant-respondent (Neil Stackhouse, on the brief).

Before Judges FURMAN, DREIER and SHEBELL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

DREIER, J.A.D.

Plaintiff, an operator of a trash hauling business in New Jersey, has appealed from the dismissal of his complaint alleging defendant's breach of warranty arising under a contract for sale of a Mack truck by defendant. Plaintiff is a New Jersey resident. Defendant is a corporation organized and doing business in Maryland. The contract was signed in Maryland, and plaintiff took delivery of the truck in that state and drove it back to New Jersey. Plaintiff alleged that soon after its purchase the truck developed numerous mechanical difficulties including a lack of engine power, a miss in the engine, malfunctions in the brake system, a loose transmission and blocked fuel lines. Plaintiff allegedly advised defendant of these problems, but defendant refused to remedy them. Plaintiff has repaired the truck at his own expense and has been deprived of its use for a substantial period.

Plaintiff instituted suit in New Jersey by serving defendant by certified mail pursuant to R. 4:4-4(c)(1). Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice on the basis of lack of in personam jurisdiction over defendant. The trial judge granted the order on May 6, 1986 ¹. In this appeal plaintiff does not contest defendant's statement that it does not "own, rent, or lease any property in New Jersey," maintains no bank accounts, equipment, or inventory in New Jersey, and "does not have any officers, salesmen or other employees or agents who work, solicit business, or reside in New Jersey."

Plaintiff said it was attracted to the transaction through an advertisement soliciting the purchase of the truck in a national waste hauler's magazine, distributed in New Jersey. Plaintiff focuses on the efforts of defendant to solicit out-of-state business as a basis for showing sufficient contacts by defendant in this State to warrant in personam jurisdiction over defendant under International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) and its progeny. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2181-2182, 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 540 (1985). Although this argument was rejected by the trial judge, we need not pass upon the correctness of that decision. Cf. Radigan v. Innisbrook Resort & Golf Club, 142 N.J.Super. 419, 361 A.2d 610 (Law Div.1976), rev'd. in part and aff'd in part 150 N.J. Super. 427, 375 A.2d 1229 (App.Div.1977). We prefer, however, to base our reversal upon the totality of circumstances, including not only the solicitation in a national publication, but also the contemplated use of the vehicle in New Jersey, a theory which in our view would itself have supported in personam jurisdiction.

It is clear that New Jersey has exercised its jurisdiction over nonresidents to the outermost limit permitted by the United States Constitution. Charles Gendler & Co. v. Telecom Equip. Corp., 102 N.J. 460, 469, 508 A.2d 1127 (1986); Avdel Corp. v. Mecure, 58 N.J. 264, 268, 277 A.2d 207 (1971). Due process does not require that a defendant have a corporate or individual presence in the forum in order to be subject to an in personam jurisdiction, but merely that "he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' " International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S.Ct. at 158, 90 L.Ed. at 102, (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 343, 85 L.Ed. 278, 283 (1940)). The defendant's contacts with the forum state must be such that "he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 567, 62 L.Ed.2d 490, 501 (1980). Defendant is deemed to have notice that it may be subject to suit when it "purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1240, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, 1298 (1958). But the actions in this case do not and need not rise to this level. If the cause of action is related to the defendant's contacts with the forum state, "an isolated act may be sufficient to subject the defendant to the jurisdiction of the forum." Charles Gendler & Co. v. Telecom Equip. Corp., supra, 102 N.J. at 471, 508 A.2d 1127. See also McGee v. International Life Ins., 355 U.S. 220, 223, 78 S.Ct. 199, 201, 2 L.Ed.2d 223, 226 (1957). In such a case, the two-step process outlined in Charles Gendler & Co. is employed:

The first step in a minimum-contacts analysis, therefore, is to determine whether the defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum state. The second step is to evaluate those contacts 'in light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with 'fair play and substantial justice." Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, supra, U.S. at , 105 S.Ct. at 2184, 85 L.Ed.2d at 543 (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, Supra, 326 U.S. at 320, 66 S.Ct. at 160, 90 L.Ed. at 104). Thus, the decision whether it is fair and reasonable to compel the non-resident to defend a suit may depend upon a balancing of various factors in addition to the defendant's contacts with the forum. See 2 Moore's Federal Practice p 4.41-1, at 4-450 (2d ed. 1985). [102 N.J. at 472, 508 A.2d 1127].

The Supreme Courts of...