Huey v. American Truetzschler Corp., Civ.A. 98-T-795-N.

• Citation: 47 F.Supp.2d 1342
• Decision Date: 14 May 1999
• Docket Number: No. Civ.A. 98-T-795-N.,Civ.A. 98-T-795-N.
• Parties: Ernest Edwin HUEY, Jr., Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN TRUETZSCHLER CORP., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

47 F.Supp.2d 1342

Ernest Edwin HUEY, Jr., Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN TRUETZSCHLER CORP., et al., Defendants.

No. Civ.A. 98-T-795-N.

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division.

May 14, 1999.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

J. Greg Allen, Jon Cole Portis, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, PC, Montgomery, AL, for plaintiff.

Michael Baird Beers, Constance T. Buckalew, Beers Anderson Jackson Nelson Hughes & Patty, PC, Montgomery, AL, James B. Carlson, Rives & Peterson, Birmingham, AL, Larry W. Harper, Porterfield, Harper & Mills, P.A., Birmingham, AL, William H. Hart, Hart Buckley & Wallace, PC, Dallas, TX, John D. Herndon, Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, Birmingham, AL, Edward A. Hosp, State of Alabama Governor's Office, Montgomery, AL, Champ Lyons, III, Rives & Peterson, Birmingham, AL, Christopher Stanley Rodgers, Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, Birmingham, AL, for defendants.

ORDER

MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge.

Plaintiff Ernest Edwin Huey, Jr., has brought this products-liability action against a number of defendants, including Temafa GmbH, a German company. Huey alleges that he suffered serious injuries while cleaning a machine that Temafa defectively designed and manufactured. He rests his lawsuit on state-law claims of negligence, wantonness, and liability under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine (commonly known as the "AEMLD"). Jurisdiction over the case, which was removed from the Circuit Court for Elmore County, Alabama, is proper under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441 (removal jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 (diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction).

This cause is now before the court on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Temafa. For reasons to follow, the court will deny the motion.

I. STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS

In the context of a motion to dismiss in which no evidentiary hearing is held, a plaintiff need establish only a prima-facie case of jurisdiction. See Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510, 1514 (11th Cir. 1990). The court, in considering the motion, must take all allegations of the complaint that the defendant does not contest as true, and, where the parties' affidavits conflict, the court must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See id.

II. BACKGROUND

On October 4, 1997, Huey severely injured his right hand while attempting to clean a machine at Russell Corporation's Gwaltney Spinning Plant in Wetumpka, Alabama.¹ The machine was designed, manufactured, and distributed by Temafa, a corporation with its principal place of business in Bergisch Gladbach, Germany.² The machine, which is called the Clean Star, is used in the manufacture of textiles.

Temafa has had no regular direct contacts with the State of Alabama. It has never operated a business or been licensed or authorized to do so here, owned property or had bank accounts or offices here, advertised there, paid taxes here, or had a telephone listing, a post-office box or another mailing address here.³

The Russell Corporation purchased four Temafa Clean Star machines for its plants in Alabama.⁴ Three are in Russell's Alexander City plant, and one is in the Wetumpka plant. Russell purchased those machines from American Truetzschler, a corporation with its primary place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina.⁵ However, Temafa shipped the machine involved in Huey's accident directly to Russell in Alabama.⁶

American Truetzschler served as a representative for Temafa in the United States.⁷ During the time that it represented Temafa, American Truetzschler sold nine Temafa machines, including the four it sold to Russell.⁸ Temafa sent engineers to Charlotte to train the American Truetzschler technicians.⁹ David Smith, an area service inspector for American Truetzschler who had received training from Temafa, installed the Temafa machine that injured Huey.¹⁰ Smith's service area included the southeastern states; however, most of the textile mills he serviced were in Alabama and southern Georgia.¹¹

American Truetzschler and Temafa ultimately severed their relationship because American Truetzschler was representing other manufacturers that built machines similar to Temafa's. Temafa then entered an agreement with Louis P. Batson Company, a South Carolina-based corporation that serves as a sales agent for textile-machinery manufacturers, by which Batson agreed to represent Temafa in the United States.¹² Temafa also sent a representative to the United States to train Craig Chapman, a Batson employee, on how to make adjustments and settings for the Temafa Clean Star machines.¹³

On April 15, 1994, after several workers were injured on the Temafa machines at the Russell plant in Alexander City, two Temafa representatives went to the plant to consult with Batson and Russell about what type of safety improvements could be made.¹⁴ After that meeting, Temafa sent a fax to American Truetzschler describing the meeting and stating that three different types of equipment were needed for all four of the Temafa machines owned by Russell.¹⁵ The note states:

"Presently Russell is not considering any legal action!

* * * * * *

"Due to product liability reasons, Russell Corporation wants these modifications to be carried out by TEMAFA. TEMAFA remains fully liable for this!"¹⁶

The note concludes that a proposal "is to be drawn up" with the mentioned modifications.¹⁷ Thereafter, Temafa asked American Truetzschler to install safety devices in the machines at Russell.¹⁸ Also after the visit, Temafa corresponded with Batson regarding the design of safety devices discussed during the visit to Russell.¹⁹ Temafa offered to send certain safety equipment upon request to Batson for Russell's Temafa machines.²⁰ It is unclear whether that equipment was ever sent or purchased.

As stated, Huey was injured on one of the Temafa machines on October 4, 1997, and this lawsuit followed on June 11, 1998.

III. DISCUSSION

When a defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the twin burdens of establishing that personal jurisdiction over the defendant comports with (1) the forum state's long-arm provision and (2) the requirements of the due-process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. See Olivier v. Merritt Dredging Co., 979 F.2d 827, 830 (11th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 983, 113 S.Ct. 1577, 123 L.Ed.2d 145 (1993). Because Alabama's long-arm provision, Ala.R.Civ.P. 4.2(a), authorizes the assertion of personal jurisdiction to the limits of the United States Constitution, a plaintiff may carry both these burdens by demonstrating that personal jurisdiction over the defendant meets the requirements of federal due process. Id. Due process requires, first, that the defendant have "certain minimum contacts" with the forum state and, second, that the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin, 495 U.S. 604, 618, 110 S.Ct. 2105, 2114-15, 109 L.Ed.2d 631 (1990) (quoting International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, Office of Unemployment Compensation and Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)).

A. Minimum Contacts

The Supreme Court has identified two types of personal jurisdiction: specific and general. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-15 nn. 8 & 9, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1872 nn. 8 & 9, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). General jurisdiction arises from a party's frequent contacts with the forum state unrelated to the litigation. See id. at 414 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. at 1872 n. 9. Specific jurisdiction derives from a party's contacts with the forum that are related to the cause of action. Id. at 414 n. 8, 104 S.Ct. at 1872 n. 8. Huey invokes only specific jurisdiction.

To constitute minimum contacts for purposes of specific jurisdiction, each defendant's contacts with the applicable forum must satisfy three criteria: first, the contacts must be related to the plaintiff's cause of action or have given rise to it; second, the contacts must involve some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; and third, the contacts must be such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the forum. See Vermeulen v. Renault, U.S.A., Inc., 985 F.2d 1534, 1546 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 907, 113 S.Ct. 2334, 124 L.Ed.2d 246 (1993). Temafa's contacts with Alabama satisfy these three criteria.

Temafa had contacts with Alabama related to the cause of action and giving rise to the cause of action. Temafa established indirect contacts with Alabama by entering agreements with American Truetzschler and Batson to act as its sales representative in the United States, including Alabama. American Truetzschler sold Temafa machines to Russell Corporation in Alabama in its role as Temafa's representative. Temafa had direct contact with Alabama when it shipped the machine that injured Huey, as well as three others, to Russell. Furthermore, Temafa representatives visited a Russell plant in Alabama to discuss safety improvements to a Clean Star machine, agreed to develop and later proposed safety improvements for Russell's Clean Star machines, and attempted to engage American Truetzschler to install safety equipment in the machines. These contacts are closely related to Huey's cause of action.

By these contacts, Temafa purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum. The Supreme Court's most recent analysis of the purposeful-availment requirement was in Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California, Solano County, 480 U.S. 102, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987). In that case, which involved an indemnification action brought in California by Cheng Shin, a Taiwanese tire...