Kluin v. American Suzuki Motor Corp.
Decision Date | 01 November 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 87,935.,87,935. |
Citation | 274 Kan. 888,56 P.3d 829 |
Parties | KURT F. KLUIN, Appellant, v. AMERICAN SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION, Appellee. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Kurt F. Kluin, appellant, argued the cause and was on the brief pro se.
Brent G. Wright, of Horn Aylward & Bandy, LLC, of Kansas City, Missouri, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This is a personal jurisdiction case focusing on the Kansas long arm statute, K.S.A. 60-308(b). The plaintiff, Kurt F. Kluin, is a Kansas resident and attorney whose law office is in Neosho County, Kansas. Kluin purchased, in Oklahoma, a Suzuki motorcycle from Bartlesville Cycle Sports, of Bartlesville, Oklahoma, an authorized American Suzuki Motor Corporation (Suzuki) dealer. Bartlesville Cycle Sports sells other manufacturers' motorcycles, including Honda and Yamaha, in addition to Suzuki motorcycles. Kluin sued Suzuki in Neosho County, Kansas, for breach of warranties, express and implied, and violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA), K.S.A. 50-623 et seq. Suzuki responded by filing a K.S.A. 60-212(b)(2) and (3) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The district court granted the motion to dismiss. Kluin appeals.
We have the appeal under K.S.A. 20-3018(c), a transfer on our own motion.
The controlling question is whether the district court erred in granting Suzuki's K.S.A. 60-212(b)(2) motion to dismiss, concluding that Kansas did not have personal jurisdiction over Suzuki.
We find no error and affirm.
As a prologue to our discussion, we set out the facts by quoting from the district court's memorandum decision. The district court made the following findings of fact:
The district court, after a thorough analysis, concluded that (1) it did not have personal jurisdiction over Suzuki in this case, (2) no "act" occurred in Neosho County, Kansas, and (3) the motion to dismiss for lack of proper venue was moot.
Kluin questions certain findings of the district court. He argues that the district court failed to give him the benefit of all factual doubt when considering the motion and erroneously made factual findings on disputed material facts. Kluin served interrogatories and a request for production on Suzuki with his petition. Suzuki neither answered the interrogatories nor produced the requested documents. Suzuki's response was to file the motion to dismiss at issue here. Kluin did not file a motion to compel discovery under K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 60-237.
The district court reasoned that there was sufficient information in the record to decide jurisdiction without additional discovery. On appeal, Kluin contends that the district court should have allowed him to conduct discovery on the questions of (1) "whether the defendant manufactured the motorcycle," (2) "the nature of the defendant's relationship with [Suzuki] dealers," and (3) "the extent of the defendant's business operations" in Kansas.
Suzuki counters that Kluin failed to show how those questions were material to the issue of personal jurisdiction. Suzuki asserts that, in response to its affidavit, Kluin was obligated to produce material facts, not mere "bald assertions," in support of his personal jurisdiction claim.
Control of discovery is entrusted to the sound discretion of the district court. Orders concerning discovery will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of clear abuse of discretion. Hill v. Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co., 263 Kan. 703, 704, 952 P.2d 1286 (1998).
Counsel's respective positions on jurisdiction were supported by written submissions and oral argument presented to the district court in a telephone conference.
Although the affidavits of Kluin and Suzuki conflicted regarding whether Suzuki was the manufacturer of the motorcycle, this factual dispute is resolved in Kluin's favor. See In re Hesston Corp., 254 Kan. 941, 954, 870 P.2d 17 (1994). Suzuki extended the warranty Kluin was suing on. (Although no express warranty is in the record, counsel for Suzuki agreed during argument below that one was given by Suzuki.)
With regard to dealings with retailers purchasing motorcycles, Suzuki's affidavit indicated that the titles to the Suzuki motorcycles were transferred outside of Kansas and that sales of vehicles to dealerships were processed outside of Kansas. It was undisputed here that Kluin purchased the motorcycle from the Oklahoma dealership, not from Suzuki, and that the Oklahoma dealership sells several different brands of motorcycles, including Suzuki. The certificate of origin for the motorcycle showed the first transfer of the new vehicle from "American Suzuki Motor Corporation" to Bartlesville Cycle Sports in Oklahoma. Kluin alleges he returned to Bartlesville Cycle Sports "more than once" for warranty repairs on his cycle although there are authorized Suzuki dealers in Kansas. A printout of the Suzuki web page in the record confirmed Kluin's assertion in his affidavit that there were authorized Suzuki dealers in Kansas.
The question of whether jurisdictional discovery is warranted depends on the facts of each case. It has been held that leave for jurisdictional discovery is properly denied where the plaintiff does not show that facts exist which would warrant the denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Mello v. Giliberto, 73 S.W.3d 669, 674 (Mo. App. 2002) ( ); De Capriles v. Lopez Lugo, 293 App. Div.2d 405, 740 N.Y.S.2d 623 (2002) ( ); cf. Kansas Food Packers, Inc. v. Corpak Inc., 192 F.R.D. 707, 708-09 (D. Kan. 2000) ( ).
A review of the transcript of the oral argument before the district court reflects that counsel disagreed on which interrogatories, if answered, would touch on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Merriman v. Crompton Corp., No. 91,702.
...court reviews a trial court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction under a de novo standard. Kluin v. American Suzuki Motor Corp., 274 Kan. 888, 893, 56 P.3d 829 (2002). In the context of this class action, only the claims of the named class representative, not absent members of a po......
-
Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. v. Filardo
...& Chaney, Inc., 282 Kan. 365, 368, 144 P.3d 747 (2006) ( K.S.A. 60–212 [b][3] motion regarding venue); Kluin v. American Suzuki Motor Corp., 274 Kan. 888, 893, 56 P.3d 829 (2002) ( K.S.A. 60–212 [b][2] motion regarding personal jurisdiction); see also Behagen v. Amateur Basketball Ass'n of ......
-
In re K.M.H.
...each of the issues raised on appeal presents a pure question of law reviewable de novo by this court. Kluin v. American Suzuki Motor Corp., 274 Kan. 888, 893, 56 P.3d 829 (2002). Although S.H.'s motion was titled "Motion to Dismiss," the district judge considered materials beyond the pleadi......
-
Thompson v. Jiffy Lube Intern., Inc.
...first analyze whether there is jurisdiction under the Kansas long arm statute. Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-308(b); Kluin v. American Suzuki Motor Corp., 274 Kan. 888, 894, 56 P.3d 829 (2002) (a court first decides if the long arm statute permits jurisdiction and only if this is satisfied does the co......
-
Unresolved Issues Under the Unfair Trade Practices Act
...§ 3.7. 134.See, e.g., Mueller Co. v. U.S. Pipe and Foundry Co., 2003 WL 22272135 (D.N.H. Oct. 2, 2003); Kluin v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 56 P.3d 829 (Kan. 2002): Goshen v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 730 N.Y.S.2d 46 (App. Div. 2001), aff'd, 774 N.E.2d 1190 (N.Y. 2002); Sithon Maritime C......
-
Attorney Advertising on the Web: Are We in Kansas Anymore?
...Farmer, Legal Services and Advertising in Cyberspace, 70 J. Kan Bar Ass'n 38 (May 2001). [30] Id. [31] Kluin v. American Suzuki Corp., 274 Kan. 888 (2002). [32] Nia Marie Monroe, The Need for Uniformity, Geo. J. Legal Ethics, Summer 2005. [33] 1-10 Law of the Internet, Sec. 10.03, p. 9, Mat......