Grimandi v. Beech Aircraft Corp.

• Decision Date: 07 April 1981
• Docket Number: 77-1232,Civ. A. No. 77-1239,77-1238 and 77-1234.,77-1247,77-1233,77-1235,77-1246
• Citation: Grimandi v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 512 F.Supp. 764 (D. Kan. 1981)
• Parties: Jacqueline GRIMANDI, Plaintiff, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al., Defendants. Elizabeth BECHETOILLE, Plaintiff, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al., Defendants. Ann BOSCHER, Plaintiff, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al., Defendants. Christine CHAPPAT, Plaintiff, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al., Defendants. Helen DELBART, Plaintiff, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al., Defendants. Jeannine DESMOUTIER, Plaintiff, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al., Defendants. Marie MENIER, Plaintiff, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al., Defendants. Marie GUEROUT, Plaintiff, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Kansas

512 F. Supp. 764

Jacqueline GRIMANDI, Plaintiff, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al., Defendants.

Elizabeth BECHETOILLE, Plaintiff, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al., Defendants.

Ann BOSCHER, Plaintiff, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al., Defendants.

Christine CHAPPAT, Plaintiff, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al., Defendants.

Helen DELBART, Plaintiff, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al., Defendants.

Jeannine DESMOUTIER, Plaintiff, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al., Defendants.

Marie MENIER, Plaintiff, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al., Defendants.

Marie GUEROUT, Plaintiff, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. Nos. 77-1239, 77-1246, 77-1233, 77-1247, 77-1232, 77-1235, 77-1238 and 77-1234.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

April 7, 1981.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Gerald C. Sterns, San Francisco, Cal., and James B. Zongker of Render & Kamas, Wichita, Kan., for plaintiffs.

Paul B. Swartz of Martin, Pringle, Schell & Fair, Wichita, Kan., for Beech Aircraft Corp.

Charles W. Harris of Curfman, Brainerd, Harris, Bell, Weigand & Depew, Wichita, Kan., for Pratt and Whitney Aircraft.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THEIS, Chief Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on motions to dismiss by Pratt & Whitney Aircraft of Canada, Ltd., Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Group, and United Technologies Corporation. Issues raised are capacity, personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and forum non conveniens. An evidentiary hearing has been held and the Court is prepared to rule.

I. CAPACITY OF THE PRATT & WHITNEY AIRCRAFT GROUP

Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Group is an operating division of United Technologies. It was conceded at oral argument that Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Group is not separately incorporated. The factual basis for resolution of the issue of capacity has thus been resolved.

Under Rule 17(b), the capacity of the Pratt & Whitney Group must be determined by the law of the state in which this district court sits. Under Kansas law, individuals and corporations are the only recognized legal entities, and an unincorporated organization may not sue or be sued in its own name. Kansas Private Club Association v. Londerholm, 196 Kan. 1, 3, 408 P.2d 891 (1965). The motion of the Pratt & Whitney Group to dismiss will therefore be granted.

II. PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Inquiry into the propriety of personal jurisdiction requires considering two questions. The first is whether service of process is authorized by statute or rule under circumstances applicable to the defendant. The second is whether the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with constitutional standards. See J.E.M. Corp. v. McClellan, 462 F.Supp. 1246, 1247 (D.Kan.1978), and cases cited therein.

A. The Long Arm Statute

Under K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(1), a person submits himself to jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Kansas for any causes of action arising from the transaction of any business within the state. Without question, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft of Canada, Ltd. hereinafter Pratt & Whitney transacted business within the State of Kansas. Pratt & Whitney sent agents to Kansas to solicit sales of the PT6 engine. As a result of those solicitations, sales of the PT6 engines were made to Beech. Subsequently, those engines were shipped into Kansas, although they were sold to Beech F.O.B. in Longueil, Quebec.

From a statutory viewpoint, the more difficult question is whether plaintiffs' causes of action "arise from" defendant's transaction of business within the state. The problem is that the engine that allegedly failed was never in the State of Kansas — instead, it was a replacement engine. The original engines were sold by Pratt & Whitney to Beech and were incorporated into Beech 99's here in Wichita. The Beech 99 that crashed, giving rise to this lawsuit, had been manufactured in Wichita. The component engine had, however, been added to the plane at a later time as a replacement, and as stated earlier, had never been sold to Beech and had never been in the State of Kansas. Since the engine that failed had not been sold to Beech in Kansas, defendant strongly contends that plaintiffs' causes of action did not arise from defendant's transaction of business in Kansas.

The crash of the Beech 99 occurred in France. That fact, however, is not dispositive as to statutory jurisdiction. The Kansas statute does not require that the cause of action arise in Kansas, only that it arise from the doing of an enumerated act which took place in Kansas. Cf. Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Superior Oil Co., 460 F.Supp. 483, 512 (D.Kan.1978) (claim need not arise from contractual performance contemplated in Kansas).

Defendants argue that the cause of action did not arise from the transacting of any business in Kansas. For the reasons stated in this Court's prior order, he considers the term "arising from" not to require proximate causation between the enumerated act and plaintiffs' injuries. This Court interprets the statute to require only that there be some causal connection between the enumerated act and plaintiffs' cause of action. In this case that causal connection is present.

The facts shown by affidavit and by evidence establish that defendant sent agents into Kansas to solicit sales of the PT6 engine. As a result of those solicitations Beech incorporated the PT6 engine into the design of the Beech 99 aircraft. The agents of Pratt & Whitney of Canada aided in incorporating the engine into the design of the plane and in certifying the Beech 99 for use with the PT6 engine. The Beech 99 was certified for use only with the PT6 engine. Thus, when a replacement engine was necessary, it was inevitable that only another PT6 engine could serve as such replacement.

The evidence further indicates that the alleged defect in the PT6 engine is one common to the PT6 line of engines, and not one that was unique to the particular replacement engine that failed. Several airworthiness directives were issued as to the engine, and other air crashes have occurred because of the same defect in other engines.

But for defendant's transaction of business within the State of Kansas, a defective line of engines would not have been incorporated in and certified for use with the Beech 99, a PT6 engine would not have been installed as a replacement engine, and the crash in France probably would not have occurred. Plaintiffs' causes of action, if proved, thus flow from and are connected with defendant's transaction of business in Kansas.

The Court's decision is obviously a broad construction of the Kansas long arm statute. That statute, however, reflects a conscientious state policy to assert jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the extent permitted by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Woodring v. Hall, 200 Kan. 597, 602, 438 P.2d 135 (1968). If the statute fails to fulfill that purpose this Court cannot ignore the express language of the statute. On the other hand, this Court must recognize that purpose when construing the statute, and a broad statutory construction is required.

"A case should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction as being outside the scope of the statute, unless by no reasonable construction of the language could it be said to fall within the statute's terms."

Casad, Long Arm and Convenient Forum, 20 Kan.L.Rev. 1, 45 (1971). The Court therefore rules that the Kansas long arm statute authorizes service of process on Pratt & Whitney Aircraft of Canada, Ltd. Plaintiffs have argued that service of process is authorized by K.S.A. § 17-7307, which authorizes service upon a foreign corporation for causes of action arising while the corporation was "doing business" in Kansas, without the requirement that the cause of action arise out of the doing of business in Kansas. Defendants, however, object that service was not accomplished in accordance with the statute, which prescribes compliance with K.S.A. § 60-304. Although this Court has ruled that the long arm statute authorizes service under the circumstances of this case, out of an abundance of caution the Court would suggest that plaintiffs alternatively effect service upon the Kansas Secretary of State, as provided in K.S.A. § 60-304(f).

B. Constitutional Standards

The standard for the constitutional exercise of jurisdiction is not a mechanical or quantitative one. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319, 66 S.Ct. 154, 159, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), but rather is one of "fairness and substantial justice." It relies upon the existence of "affiliating circumstances" that create a "sufficient connection between the defendant and the forum State as to make it fair to require defense of the action in the forum." Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 1697, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978). Inconvenience to the parties, the interests of the state in providing a forum for the action, the quality and nature of the defendants' activities, and whether those activities give rise to plaintiffs' claims, are relevant considerations. Kulko, 98 S.Ct. at 1697. The focus is on the relationship among the defendant or defendants, the forum, and the litigation. The Court may also consider the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief and the judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies and in the fair and orderly administration of justice. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 564, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980); Energy Reserves Group, supra, at 515.

Pratt & Whitney's contacts with Kansas are substantial. Pratt & Whitney sent agents into Kansas to solicit sales of the PT6 engine. As a result of these solicitations the PT6 was incorporated in the Beech 99, and with Pratt & Whitney's assistance, was certified for use therein. As a result of those activities, Pratt & Whitney shipped PT6 engines into Kansas for use by Beech. A full 25% of all PT6 engines manufactured by Pratt &...