Gen. Pump & Well, Inc. v. Miller

• Decision Date: 26 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. A13A2050.,A13A2050.
• Citation: 757 S.E.2d 161,326 Ga.App. 546
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Parties: GENERAL PUMP & WELL, INC. v. MILLER.

326 Ga.App. 546

757 S.E.2d 161

GENERAL PUMP & WELL, INC.

v.MILLER.

No. A13A2050.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 26, 2014.

Callaway, Neville & Brinson, William E. Callaway Jr., William J. Neville Jr., for Appellant.

Oliver Maner, Patrick T. O'Connor, Patricia T. Paul, for Appellee.

MILLER, Judge.

This appeal arises from the failure of a well-drilling unit purchased by General Pump & Well, Inc., which included a component part manufactured by Corey Miller d/b/a Centerline Manufacturing Company (“Centerline”). To date, General Pump has litigated the failure of this well-drilling unit in multiple venues in both state and federal courts, including the litigation that resulted in this Court's decision in Laibe Corp. v. Gen. Pump & Well, Inc., 317 Ga.App. 827, 733 S.E.2d 332 (2012) (hereinafter “ General Pump 1 ”).¹ General Pump appeals from the grant of Centerline's motion to dismiss, contending that the trial court erred in dismissing this case for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue based solely upon this Court's decision in General Pump 1. Since we find that our decision in General Pump 1 is not controlling here, we reverse and remand.

A defendant moving to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the absence of jurisdiction. To meet that burden, the defendant may raise matters not contained in the pleadings. However, when the outcome of the motion depends on unstipulated facts, it must be accompanied by supporting affidavits or citations to evidentiary material in the record. Further, to the extent that defendant's evidence controverts the allegations of the complaint, plaintiff may not rely on mere allegations, but must also submit supporting affidavits or documentary evidence. When examining and deciding jurisdictional issues on a motion to dismiss, a trial court has discretion to hear oral testimony or to decide the motion on the basis of affidavits and documentary evidence alone pursuant to OCGA § 9–11–43(b).

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hyperdynamics Corp. v. Southridge Capital Mgmt., 305 Ga.App. 283, 283–284(I), 699 S.E.2d 456 (2010). Where, as here, the trial court resolved the motion to dismiss based solely upon written submissions, rather than upon evidence presented at a hearing, this Court is in an equal position with the trial court to determine and examine the facts under a non-deferential standard and we resolve all disputed issues of fact in favor of the party asserting the existence of personal jurisdiction. See id. at 284(I), 699 S.E.2d 456; see also Sun v. Girardot, 302 Ga.App. 395, 395–396, 691 S.E.2d 278 (2010) (applying de novo standard of review to grant of motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue based on trial court's consideration of parties' written submissions).

So viewed, the record shows that, in the fall of 2004, General Pump, a Georgia company, contacted Laibe Corporation in Indiana to discuss the purchase of a water well-drilling unit. Between November 2004 and March 2005, General Pump and Laibe discussed various options for configuration of the well-drilling unit, including Laibe's recommendation for incorporation of a duplex mud pump manufactured by Centerline, and drilling rods manufactured by Matrix Drilling Company. After contacting Centerline directly, General Pump entered into a new equipment purchase contract with Laibe for a custom well-drilling unit, which included the Matrix drilling rods and the mud pump that Centerline manufactured and specifically provided at an additional cost of $15,000. Laibe assembled the well-drilling unit in Indiana and delivered it to General Pump in Georgia on April 2005. The well-drilling unit subsequently developed recurring hydraulic problems and was returned to Indiana for repairs. After determining that the hydraulic problems were caused by a faulty check valve on the Centerline mud pump, Laibe repaired the hydraulic system and the mud pump and returned the well-drilling unit to General Pump.

Thereafter, in April 2006, a hole developed in the main housing of the Centerline mud pump. General Pump contacted Centerline directly and explained the problem. Centerline told General Pump that it had seen the same problem before and recommended a temporary solution. Although General Pump made the suggested temporary repair, the mud pump continued to fail at increasingly shorter intervals. As a result, the well-drilling unit was unusable for extended periods of time.

As set forth above, General Pump subsequently litigated claims against Laibe, Centerline and Matrix in numerous venues in both state and federal courts, including the present action and individual complaints against Laibe and Matrix in the State Court of Tattnall County. See Matrix Drilling, supra, No. CV608–045 at *1–3. Thereafter, the trial court denied Laibe's motion to dismiss General Pump's individual suit against it for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. In General Pump 1, this Court held that the trial court should have granted Laibe's motion to dismiss, because the sales contract for the well-drilling unit applied to General Pump's individual claims against Laibe, and the forum selection clause in that contract was enforceable. General Pump 1, supra, 317 Ga.App. at 831–834(2), 733 S.E.2d 332. Following this Court's ruling in General Pump 1, the trial court granted Centerline's motion to dismiss the instant suit for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue, finding that this case arises from the same contract and the same sales transaction that was at issue in General Pump 1.

In its sole enumeration of error, General Pump contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the present action for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue based solely on this Court's decision in General Pump 1. We agree.

In General Pump 1, Laibe argued that the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss on four distinct grounds: (1) that General Pump failed to file suit within a specified limitations period; (2) that General Pump failed to state a claim because the contract disclaimed the relevant warranties; (3) lack of personal jurisdiction; and (4) improper venue based on the contract's forum-selection clause. See General Pump 1, supra, 317 Ga.App. at 828, 733 S.E.2d 332. Contrary to the trial court's finding in the instant case, however, this Court did not hold in General Pump 1 that the trial court erred in denying Laibe's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Rather, in vacating the denial of ...