Mr. Steak, Inc. v. District Court In and For Second Judicial Dist.
| Decision Date | 06 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 27675,27675 |
| Citation | 194 Colo. 519,574 P.2d 95 |
| Parties | MR. STEAK, INC., a Colorado Corporation, Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR the SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT of the State of Colorado, Honorable James C. Flanigan, one of the Judges thereof, and Warren Wilson, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Edward F. O'Keefe, Denver, for petitioner.
Peter H. Ney, Littleton, for respondents.
In this original proceeding, petitioner Mr. Steak, Inc., a Colorado corporation, seeks relief in the nature of prohibition against the respondent district court. Petitioner asserts that the respondent district court erroneously dismissed a contract action brought by petitioner against Warren Wilson, a resident of Connecticut. This action was also against Steak and Onions, Inc., a Connecticut corporation, doing business in Connecticut as a franchisee of petitioner. Wilson was the president of Steak and Onions, Inc. He contended in his motion for dismissal that the respondent court did not have personal jurisdiction over him.
We issued a rule to show cause why the trial court should not be ordered to vacate its dismissal of the action as against Warren Wilson. Responses have now been received. We hold that the dismissal was erroneous and therefore we make the rule absolute.
Warren Wilson as the president of Steak and Onions, Inc. signed a franchise agreement and a lease agreement with Mr. Steak, Inc. in 1968. Over the years Steak and Onions, Inc. accumulated a debt of approximately $62,000 to Mr. Steak, Inc. Wilson came to Denver on June 20, 1973 to negotiate and execute the following memorandum agreement "IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between MR. STEAK, INC. and STEAK AND ONIONS, INC. (Warren Wilson, Associate), that the accounts payable by Mr. Steak No. 317, Milford, Connecticut (Steak and Onions) as of June 15, 1973, shall be calculated and mutually agreed to as soon as possible. Any increase in the accounts payable shall be calculated monthly and the ASSOCIATE (Wilson) hereby agrees to provide additional working capital as necessary on a monthly basis to maintain the accounts payable at a figure no greater than that calculated as of June 15, 1973.
* * *"
Wilson signed this memorandum agreement twice; once as an individual and once as president of Steak and Onions, Inc. Mr. Steak, Inc. set forth in its complaint filed in January 1977 that it rescinded and repudiated this agreement on November 8, 1976 following an alleged breach for failure "to faithfully retire the debt base of $62,123.13 at the earliest opportunity and by allowing the total indebtedness of Defendants to Plaintiff to exceed such base level by an amount of $15,735.29 as of November 1, 1976." Judgment in the total amount of $77,858.42 was requested against the defendants. Wilson was personally served with a summons in the state of Connecticut.
The issue presented here is whether Wilson's execution of the June 1973 memorandum agreement in Denver with Mr. Steak, Inc., a Colorado corporation, was sufficient under the due process clause to justify the exercise of in personam jurisdiction of him pursuant to Colorado's "long arm statute," which is section 13-1-124, C.R.S.1973. This statute in pertinent part states that:
"(1) Engaging in any act enumerated in this section by any person, whether or not a resident of the state of Colorado, either in person or by an agent, submits such person . . . to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state concerning any cause of action arising from: (a) The transaction of any business within this state; . . . "
In Safari Outfitt'rs v. Superior Court, 167 Colo. 456, 448 P.2d 783 (1968), we stated that this statute is to be interpreted as extending jurisdiction of our state courts to the fullest extent permitted by the due process clause of the United States Constitution.
In Van Schaack & Co. v. District Court, Colo., 538 P.2d 425 (1975), this court adopted the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruggieri v. General Well Service, Inc.
...and execute a contract, he may be properly sued in the forum state for breaches of that contract. Mr. Steak, Inc. v. District Court, 194 Colo. 519, 522, 574 P.2d 95, 97 (1978). Even if a defendant does not enter the forum state, he may still be deemed to have transacted business there. For ......
-
Oaster v. Robertson
...to the fullest extent permitted by the due process clause of the United States Constitution.” Mr. Steak, Inc. v. Dist. Court In & For Second Judicial Dist. , 194 Colo. 519, 521, 574 P.2d 95 (1978). Therefore, if jurisdiction is consistent with the due process clause, Colorado's long-arm sta......
-
FDIC v. First Interstate Bank of Denver , NA, Civil Action No. 93-B-85.
...exists between the defendant's activities and the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction reasonable. Mr. Steak, Inc. v. District Court, 194 Colo. 519, 574 P.2d 95 (1978). Here, RSI had recurring communications in Colorado with various Denman/ITM clients, including JBT. These commu......
-
Marquest Medical Products, Inc. v. Emde Corp., Civ. A. No. 80-K-61.
...non-residents to the fullest extent permissible under the due process clause of the federal constitution. Mr. Steak, Inc. v. District Court, 194 Colo. 519, 521, 574 P.2d 95, 96 (1978), Safari Outfitters Inc. v. Superior Court, 167 Colo. 456, 448 P.2d 783 (1968). In International Shoe Co. v.......
-
Pleading and Challenging Long Arm Jurisdiction in the Colorado Courts
...test of International Shoe v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945). 2. See, e.g., Mr. Steak v. District Court, _____Colo._____,574 P.2d 95 (1978) (jurisdiction based on single act); Tucker v. Vista Financial Corp.,_____Colo._____, 560 P.2d 453 (1977) (jurisdiction based on single act); ......
-
Jurisdiction and Service of Process Beyond Colorado Boundaries
...Des Pneumatiques Michelin v. District Court, 620 P.2d 1040, 9 Colo. Law. 2741 (1980) (commission of a tort); Mr. Steak v. District Court, 194 Colo. 519, 574 P.2d 95 (1978) (jurisdiction based on a single act); and Van Schaack v. District Court, 189 Colo. 145, 538 P.2d 425 (1976) (transactio......