Kellan v. Holster, 79-653 Civ. T-K.

• Decision Date: 25 June 1981
• Docket Number: No. 79-653 Civ. T-K.,79-653 Civ. T-K.
• Citation: 518 F. Supp. 175
• Parties: Veoda KELLAN, Plaintiff, v. Richard HOLSTER d/b/a Holster Trailer Sales, Parkway Distributors, Inc., and Holiday Rambler Corporation, Defendants. Parkway Distributors, Inc., and Holiday Rambler Corporation, Third Party Plaintiffs, Charles D. Vaughn and Reserve Insurance Company, a corporation, Third Party Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

518 F. Supp. 175

Veoda KELLAN, Plaintiff, v. Richard HOLSTER d/b/a Holster Trailer Sales, Parkway Distributors, Inc., and Holiday Rambler Corporation, Defendants.

Parkway Distributors, Inc., and Holiday Rambler Corporation, Third Party Plaintiffs,

Charles D. Vaughn and Reserve Insurance Company, a corporation, Third Party Defendants.

No. 79-653 Civ. T-K.

United States District Court, M. D. Florida, Tampa Division.

June 25, 1981.

John F. McCue, Mulholland & Anderson, Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff.

Robert A. Mora, Allen, Dell, Frank & Trinkle, Tampa, Fla., for Parkway Distributors and Holiday Rambler.

Jeffrey Fuller, St. Petersburg, Fla., for third party defendants.

KRENTZMAN, District Judge.

ORDER

The Court has for consideration pending motions in the file. This is a diversity case in which plaintiff Kellan sues defendants for alleged negligent manufacture and installation of a trailer ball hitch that she contends malfunctioned while under use in Florida, thereby causing her certain injuries. Defendants Parkway Distributors and Holiday Rambler Corporation have filed a third-party complaint for contribution against Charles D. Vaughn, the driver of the automobile in which plaintiff Kellan was riding at the time of the alleged accident, and against Reserve Insurance Company, Vaughn's insurance carrier.

Hearing was held before the Court on October 7, 1980, on the following motions then pending:

Defendant Richard Holster's and Holster Trailer Sales' August 6, 1979 motion to quash process and service of process due to alleged lack of minimum contacts with the state of Florida;

Third-party defendant Vaughn's May 27, 1980 motion to dismiss the third-party complaint;

Third-party plaintiffs Parkway Distributors' and Holiday Rambler's July 23, 1980 motion to compel production of photographs of the accident scene;

Defendant Holster's September 29, 1980 motion to compel production of photographs of the accident scene and to impose sanctions.

At the conclusion of the October 7 hearing, and after ruling by the Court on the above motions, the Court directed counsel for defendant Holster to provide the Court with a memorandum opinion reflecting the rulings made at hearing and substantiating those rulings, particularly the dismissal of Holster for lack of minimum contacts, with an analysis of the caselaw and statutory law discussed at hearing. Although a short, proposed order was provided, the Court was less than satisfied with its form. This order reflects the findings made at that hearing.

Plaintiff herein is a citizen of the state of Florida, and all defendants are citizens of the state of Wisconsin. Jurisdiction is asserted over defendants pursuant to the Florida long-arm statute, Fla.Stat. 48.193.

It is well established in this Circuit that the power of a federal court in a diversity suit to exercise jurisdiction over the persons of nonresident defendants turns on two independent considerations. The law of the state in which the federal court sits must confer jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants. If it does, the exercise of jurisdiction under state law must comport with basic due process requirements of the United States Constitution. Product Promotions, Inc. v. Cousteau, 495 F.2d 483 (5th Cir. 1974).

As discussed at hearing and as presented through memoranda of law, defendant Holster asserts that he has no minimum contacts with Florida so as to permit the invocation of jurisdiction over him, and he moves to quash process and service of process based upon the recent case of World-Wide Volkswagen Corporation v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980).

The Court has examined Section 48.193, the Florida long-arm statute, and the case-law relating thereto. Section 48.193(1)(f) confers personal jurisdiction on Florida courts over a nonresident who:

Causes injury to persons or property within this state arising out of an act or omission outside of this state by the defendant, provided that at the time of the injury either:

1. The defendant was engaged in solicitation or service activities within this state which resulted in such injury; or

2. Products, materials, or things processed, serviced, or manufactured by the defendant anywhere were used or consumed within this state in the ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use, and the use or consumption resulted in the injury.

The state courts of Florida and federal courts applying Florida law have consistently held that Section 48.193 requires more activities or contacts to invoke jurisdiction than are required by the Constitution. See Osborn v. University Society, Inc., 378 So.2d 873 (Fla.2d Dist.Ct.App.1979); Youngblood v. Citrus Assoc. of N. Y. Cotton Exchange, Inc., 276 So.2d 505 (Fla.2d Dist.Ct.App. 1973); Mallard v. Aluminum Company of Canada, Ltd., 634 F.2d 236 (5th Cir., 1981); and Escambia Treating Co. v. Otto Candies, Inc., 405 F.Supp. 1235 (N.D.Fla.1975).

The 1980 Supreme Court decision in World-Wide Volkswagen Corporation v. Woodson, supra, discussed in detail the due process requirements necessary to invoke jurisdiction over an alien defendant. That case reexamined the minimum contacts standards set forth in International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), and established clear guidelines regarding when a particular defendant's activity in a foreign state is sufficiently foreseeable to cause injury or harm in another state so as to subject him to personal jurisdiction in the foreign state.

In World-Wide Volkswagen the Court held that the mere sale of an automobile in New York was insufficient to subject the New York retail dealer who sold the car to plaintiffs to the jurisdiction of Oklahoma courts when the automobile was involved in an accident while traveling through Oklahoma. The New York retailer maintained no offices in Oklahoma, had no agents in Oklahoma, purchased or conducted no advertising or promotions there, and availed itself of "none of the privileges and benefits of Oklahoma law." 100 S.Ct. at 566. While stating that it is perhaps remotely foreseeable that an automobile sold in New York state could eventually make its way into Oklahoma, the Court specifically articulated that "`foreseeability' alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause." 100 S.Ct. at 566. The Court discussed the role of foreseeability as follows:

The foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis is not the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum State. Rather, it is that the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.

100 S.Ct. at 567. Thus, foreseeability must not be viewed in an isolated fashion, but rather must be considered in the context of the defendant's nexus with and conduct relating to the foreign state.

In the instant case, defendant Holster has submitted an affidavit to the Court relating to his business, Holster Trailer Sales. The Court has examined this affidavit as well as other materials in the file.

Holster Trailer Sales, now defunct, was at the time of the installation of the trailer ball hitch a sole proprietorship owned and operated by Robert Holster and located in Wausau, Wisconsin. Holster Trailer Sales conducted its business operations solely in Wausau, Wisconsin, and had no other business operations or outlets either in the state of Wisconsin or elsewhere. It conducted no advertising, sales, or solicitation in or directed...