Nike, Inc. v. Spencer
Decision Date | 22 November 1985 |
Parties | NIKE, INC., a corporation, formerly BRS, Inc., dba Blue Ribbon Sports, Respondent, v. David C. SPENCER, Kathleen S. Spencer, and Daniel Stroick, also known as Dan Stroick, Appellants. A8306-03549; CA A32879. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Lloyd W. Weisensee, Portland, argued the cause for appellants. With him on briefs were Williams, Fredrickson, Stark, Hiefield, Norville & Weisensee, P.C., Portland.
E. Andrew Jordan, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on brief were Bolliger, Hampton & Tarlow, Portland.
Before RICHARDSON, P.J., and WARDEN and NEWMAN, JJ.
Nike, Inc., as the surviving corporation of a merger with its wholly owned subsidiary, BRS, Inc., brought this action to enforce a guaranty agreement between defendants and BRS for the debts of Barefoot Sports, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation. After denying defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, ORCP 21 A(2), and for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim, ORCP 21 A(8), the trial court granted Nike's motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment in the amount of $152,326.76, representing the unpaid principal balance of Barefoot Sports' account with Nike, together with interest through May 15, 1983, in the sum of $28,775.91, plus interest on the unpaid principal balance at the rate of 18 percent per annum from May 15, 1983, and for attorney fees and costs. Defendants appeal, assigning error to the court's denial of their motions for dismissal and the granting of Nike's motion for summary judgment. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.
Nike is an Oregon corporation engaged in the athletic and leisure shoe and apparel business. Its subsidiary, BRS, also was an Oregon corporation and conducted a number of Nike's manufacturing and marketing activities. In 1975, Barefoot Sports established an open credit account with BRS. The application form bears a Nike logo and the legend "BRS, Inc., 6175 S.W. 112th Avenue, Beaverton, Oregon." In December, 1978, BRS requested personal guaranties from the corporate officers of Barefoot Sports, including defendants. In relevant part, the letter, addressed to the attention of defendant David Spencer and requesting the guaranties, read:
A second letter, dated July 5, 1979, stated:
On July 7, 1979, defendants executed a one-page, unconditional guaranty, 1 which in pertinent part provides:
"IN CONSIDERATION of the extension of Credit by BRS, INC. to
BAREFOOT SPORTS, INC., hereinafter called
(name of business)
debtor, the undersigned do hereby personally guarantee payment, when due, of any indebtedness now or at any time hereafter owing by debtor to BRS, INC. If there be more than one guarantor, whether or not their guarantees shall be evidenced by a single writing, their obligation shall be joint and several.
Defendant David Spencer, president of Barefoot Sports, returned the signed guaranty agreement to "Nike--BRS" at its Beaverton address.
On December 31, 1981, BRS merged into Nike. See ORS 57.455 to 57.495. Although it is not entirely clear from the evidence, it appears that before the merger both BRS and Nike were selling goods to Barefoot Sports and that Nike continued to do so after the merger.
Defendants' first assignment of error raises the issue of personal jurisdiction over each of the individual defendants. Our analysis begins with ORCP 4. Specific bases for exercising "long-arm" jurisdiction are enumerated in subsections B through K; subsection L is a catchall provision "extending personal jurisdiction to the outer limits of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution." State ex rel. Hydraulic Servocontrols v. Dale, 294 Or. 381, 384, 657 P.2d 211 (1982). Our approach generally is first to determine whether any of the specific provisions applies. If none is applicable, we then examine due process considerations under subsection L, which provides:
"Notwithstanding a failure to satisfy the requirement of sections B. through K. of [ORCP 4], in any action where prosecution of the action against a defendant in this state is not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or the Constitution of the United States."
The burden is on Nike to allege and prove facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction. State ex rel. Jones v. Crookham, 296 Or. 735, 738, 681 P.2d 103 (1984); State ex rel. Sweere v. Crookham, 289 Or. 3, 7, 609 P.2d 361 (1980). Nike first contends that in this case jurisdiction exists under ORCP 4 E(4):
Nike's position is that ORCP 4 E(4) applies, "because goods were shipped, at defendants' order, from the State of Oregon to the defendants, and payment was guaranteed by defendants." Alternatively, it argues that personal jurisdiction is proper under ORCP 4 L, because the acts of defendants caused important consequences in Oregon, the cause of action arose from consequences of defendants' activities and the connection is so substantial as to make jurisdiction over defendants reasonable. See State ex rel. White Lumber v. Sulmonetti, 252 Or. 121, 448 P.2d 571 (1968). Defendants counter that ORCP 4 E(4) cannot be the basis for jurisdiction, arguing that Nike does not distinguish between defendants and Barefoot Sports and that, given that distinction, there is no evidence in the record that goods were shipped at defendants' request or to defendants and that plaintiff's reliance on ORCP 4 E(4) requires the unwarranted assumption that the guaranties apply to pre-merger sales by Nike to Barefoot Sports or that the guaranties survived the merger so as to apply to Nike's post-merger sales to Barefoot Sports. More generally, defendants argue that their contacts with Oregon are too minimal to be constitutionally sufficient bases for personal jurisdiction under ORCP 4 L.
At this juncture, we note that the potential applicability of defendants' guaranties of payment for sales by Nike to Barefoot Sports, as distinguished from sales by BRS, is a pivotal issue underlying defendants' second and third assignments or error. Because we agree that that issue is related to the question of jurisdiction, we address it first. That defendants executed personal guaranties to BRS for payment of debts of Barefoot Sports and that a merger of BRS and Nike was effected December 31, 1981, leaving Nike as the surviving corporation, are not disputed. The precise question of law we must decide is whether, following a merger of a corporation and its subsidiary corporation, a guaranty in favor of the subsidiary inures to the benefit of the surviving corporation.
The effect of a corporate merger is statutorily controlled. In relevant part, ORS 57.480(1) provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Am. Humanist Ass'n. United States, Case No. 3:14–cv–00565–HA.
... ... Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir.2010). The reviewing court must treat all facts alleged in the ... Nike, Inc. v. Spencer, 75 Or.App. 362, 707 P.2d 589, 591 (1985) ; see ORCP 4, Therefore, plaintiff ... ...
-
MARC NELSON OIL PRODUCTS v. GRIM LOGGING
... 110 P.3d 120 199 Or. App. 73 MARC NELSON OIL PRODUCTS, INC., an Oregon corporation, Respondent, ... GRIM LOGGING COMPANY, INC., an Oregon corporation, ... Relying on Nike, Inc. v. Spencer, 75 Or.App. 362, 707 P.2d 589, rev. den., 300 Or. 451, 712 P.2d 110 (1985), ... ...
-
Commercial Agency v. Loe
... ... Loe and Lamar Loe Leasing Company, Inc. 1 to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. That motion, which was filed on August 13, 1986, ... See Nike, Inc. v. Spencer, 75 Or.App. 362, 707 P.2d 589, 591, 592 (1985). In this sense, the issue of ... ...
-
Nike Usa, Inc. v. Pro Sports Wear, Inc.
... ... In their submissions, defendants essentially ignored that compelling evidence. Moreover, assuming that defendants did not actually know that plaintiff was an Oregon corporation, what we said in Nike, Inc. v. Spencer, 75 Or.App. 362, 374, 707 P.2d 589, rev. den., 300 Or. 451, 712 P.2d 110 (1985) is equally apropos here: ... "[W]e believe that in a sophisticated commercial transaction such as this it was [defendants'] obligation to determine with whom they were contracting and that knowledge ... ...