Lycoming Division of Avco Corp. v. Superior Court of Maricopa County
| Decision Date | 06 August 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-CIV,1 |
| Citation | 524 P.2d 1323,22 Ariz.App. 150 |
| Parties | LYCOMING DIVISION OF AVCO CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY, Arizona, and the Honorable Roger G. Strand, Respondent; Fay I. MORTON, Administratrix of the Estate of Carl B. Morton, Deceased, and on behalf of he surviving heirs, Carl B. Morton, Jr., and Pamela Morton, minors, Real Party in Interest. 2772. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
This special action in the nature of certiorari involves a review of the propriety of the respondent trial court's order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over the petitioner in a pending civil action.
The pending action in the trial court is a wrongful death action brought by real party in interest here, Fay I. Morton, against numerous defendants, including petitioner here, Lycoming Division of Avco Corporation. Mrs. Morton is a resident of Arizona and the Arizona personal representative of the deceased. The exact status of Lycoming Division of Avco Corporation was not established by the pleadings or by counsel at the hearing before this Court, but as all parties have treated Lycoming and Avco as being the same entity, we will treat it in the same manner and it will be referred to hereafter as Avco. Avco is a foreign corporation and was served with the summons and complaint by certified mail to its statutory agent in Delaware. In its answer, and later by separate motion, Avco moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and for lack of personal jurisdiction over it. The trial court denied these motions, and this special action petition was then filed.
Since expeditious review of such a ruling is an appropriate subject for special action proceedings, we accepted jurisdiction. Magidow v. Coronado Cattle Co., 19 Ariz.App. 38, 504 P.2d 961 (1972); Deere & Co. v. Superior Court, 18 Ariz.App. 491, 503 P.2d 967 (1972). For the reasons hereafter stated, the requested relief of directing the trial court to grant petitioner's motion to dismiss the complaint as to it is granted.
We note initially that the complaint, on its face, does not allege the residence of the plaintiff, the place of death, that defendant Avco is a corporation doing business in this state, or that it caused any event to occur in this state out of which the claim arose. It does allege that Avco is a foreign corporation. The complaint therefore does not comply in any way with Rule 8(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S. However, the parties proceeded to submit affidavits, other evidentiary materials, and memoranda for consideration by the trial court in its ruling on the motion. From the pleadings and these documents it appears undisputed that the plaintiff Morton is a resident of Arizona, that the death of the deceased occurred in Nogales, Sonora, Republic of Mexico, that the defendant Avco is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in Connecticut, that it is not licensed to do business in Arizona, and that Avco is not the employer, employee, principal or agent of any other defendant.
The only dispute between the parties centers on the question of whether Avco is doing business in this state. Avco asserts that it is not. Morton asserts that it is, and has filed affidavits indicating in substance that Piper airplanes containing Avco (Lycoming) engines are sold in Arizona, that Avco (Lycoming) engines are themselves sold in Arizona by independent distributors, and that certain specified subsidiaries of Avco are doing business in Arizona in areas of activity completely unrelated to plaintiff, deceased, or the subject matter of the claim. These affidavits also recite extensive statistics to show that Avco is a giant corporate conglomerate with practically unlimited financial resources. Inasmuch as the actual facts, and not the mere allegations of the complaint, are determinative of the jurisdictional question, we have considered all of the foregoing as material facts. Magidow v. Coronado Cattle Co., Supra; Pegler v. Sullivan, 6 Ariz.App. 338, 432 P.2d 593 (1967).
In determining whether an Arizona court can acquire personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation, we start with the general proposition that without personal service of process on that corporation within this state, no personal jurisdiction is acquired. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1878); O'Leary v. Superior Court, 104 Ariz. 308, 452 P.2d 101 (1969); Magidow v. Coronado Cattle Co., Supra. The only basis for personal jurisdiction over Avco in contravention of this fundamental rule of law which could be asserted is Arizona's 'long arm' provision, contained in Rule 4(e)(2), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S. Real party in interest asserts that service was made pursuant to that Rule and that by its terms such service has the same effect as personal service within the state.
Rule 4(e)(2) provides in pertinent part that:
'When the defendant . . . is a corporation Doing business in this state, or . . . Which has caused an event to occur in this state out of which the claim which is the subject of the complaint arose . . .' (Emphasis added)
it may be served with process by registered (or certified) mail sent to it outside of this state, with the same effect as personal service within the state, I.e., the conferring on the court of In personam jurisdiction over the corporation served. While this Rule is intended to permit Arizona...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Savarese v. Edrick Transfer & Storage, Inc.
...that a defendant is doing business in Arizona is on the plaintiff once the defendant has raised it. Lycoming Div. of Avco Corp. v. Superior Ct., 22 Ariz.App. 150, 524 P.2d 1323 (1974); Deere & Co. v. Superior Ct., 18 Ariz.App. 491, 503 P.2d 967 (1972). Here, however, plaintiff should not ha......
-
Amba Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Jobar Intern., Inc.
...of jurisdiction would accord with due process. See Maloof v. Raper Sales, Inc., supra; Lycoming Division of Avco Corp. v. Superior Court, 22 Ariz.App. 150, 152, 524 P.2d 1323, 1325 (1974).8 An after-the-fact determination that a nonresident defendant knew or reasonably should have known tha......
-
Houghton v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
...continuous course of conduct within the state by the defendant over whom jurisdiction is asserted.' Lycoming Division of Avco Corp. v. Superior Court, 22 Ariz.App. 150, 524 P.2d 1323 (1974). In addition, due process requires 'that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment In personam, i......
-
Kadota v. Hosogai
...jurisdiction is challenged, the party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of establishing it. Lycoming Div. of Avco Corp. v. Superior Court, 22 Ariz.App. 150, 524 P.2d 1323 (1974). Furthermore, the law is clear that a judgment is void if the trial court did not have jurisdiction because o......