Hetrick v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
Decision Date | 21 October 1976 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 75-0-222. |
Citation | 429 F. Supp. 116 |
Parties | Susan HETRICK, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a corporation, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska |
Richard J. Dinsmore, Omaha, Neb., for plaintiff.
Wayne J. Mark, Omaha, Neb., for defendants American Honda and Honda Motor.
Keith Howard, Omaha, Neb., for defendant Ramer Motors.
This matter comes before the Court upon the motion of defendant, Honda Motor Company, to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction Filing # 33.
The pleadings reveal the following allegations. On July 11, 1971, plaintiff was a passenger on a 1971 Honda motorcycle operated by Richard Lee Emry. The motorcycle was sold to Emry by Ramer Motors on July 10, 1971, and was manufactured by Honda Motor Company and distributed by American Honda Motor Company. Plaintiff instituted this action on June 12, 1975, alleging breach of warranty, negligence and strict liability.
The affidavit submitted by defendant discloses that Honda Motor Company, Ltd. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Japan, engaged in the manufacture of motorcycles and other vehicles and parts and accessories therefor. Title to the motorcycles and other vehicles, parts and accessories, which are to be sold in the United States, passes in Japan. Defendant, American Honda Motor Company, Inc., is the exclusive distributor of products manufactured by Honda Motor Company Ltd. within the United States. Defendant therefore contends that its minimum contacts are insufficient to satisfy due process and the Court therefore lacks personal jurisdiction.
Plaintiff attempts to invoke personal jurisdiction over each defendant pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-536(1)(a)(b) and (d) (Cum.Supp.1974):
When a plaintiff seeks to bring a defendant into court under a long-arm statute, he must state sufficient facts in the complaint to invoke jurisdiction. Once jurisdiction has been denied, plaintiff has the burden of proving such facts. Block Industries v. DHJ Industries, Inc., 495 F.2d 256 (8th Cir. 1974); Jetco Electronic Industries, Inc. v. Gardiner, 473 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir. 1973).
Amenability to extra-territorial personal jurisdiction is a question of due process. A defendant must "have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). This Court has previously held that Nebraska's Long Arm Statute is as broad as the constitutional standard of due process. Vergara v. Aeroflot "Soviet Airlines," 390 F.Supp. 1266 (D.Neb.1975). See also Morton Buildings of Neb., Inc. v. Morton Buildings, Inc., 333 F.Supp. 187 (D.Neb.1971); Von Seggern v. Saikin, 187 Neb. 315, 189 N.W.2d 512 (1971).
In the Eighth Circuit, personal jurisdiction under long-arm statutes must meet due process requirements governed by the following guidelines: (1) the nature and quality of the contacts with the forum state; (2) the quantity of contacts with the forum state; (3) the relation of the cause of action to the forum state; (4) the interest of the forum state in providing a forum for its residents; (5) the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Co.
...v. Metz Apparatewerke, 509 F.2d 1137, 1144 (7th Cir. 1975); Rockwell Int'l Corp., 553 F. Supp. at 334; Hetrick v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 429 F. Supp. 116, 118-19 (D. Neb. 1976). Thus, the stream-of-commerce theory supports personal jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers that deriv......
-
Charles Gendler & Co., Inc. v. Telecom Equipment Corp.
...Cir.1975); Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. Costruzioni Aeronautiche Giovanni Agusta, supra, 553 F.Supp. at 334; Hetrick v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 429 F.Supp. 116, 118-19 (D.Neb.1976); Coons v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. of Japan, supra, 176 N.J.Super. at 580-81, 424 A.2d 466. Thus, the stream-o......
-
Hutson v. Fehr Bros., Inc.
...to insulate itself from the jurisdiction of the court through the use of an exclusive distributor. Hetrick v. American Honda Motor Co., 429 F.Supp. 116, 118-19 (D.Neb.1976). It is not essential to personal jurisdiction that AW knew that its product was being sold in Arkansas. It is enough t......
-
Waters v. Deutz Corp.
...sold steel in Sweden to its wholly owned American subsidiary was subject to jurisdiction in Pennsylvania); Hetrick v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., D.Neb., 429 F.Supp. 116 (1976) (Japanese manufacturer sold motorcycles in Japan to exclusive American distributor with title to motorcycle tr......