Omnisource Corp. v. Fortune Trading Co., Inc., 02A04-8804-CV-121

• Decision Date: 26 April 1989
• Docket Number: No. 02A04-8804-CV-121,02A04-8804-CV-121
• Citation: 537 N.E.2d 43
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Parties: OMNISOURCE CORPORATION, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. FORTUNE TRADING COMPANY, INC., Appellee (Defendant Below).

Page 43

537 N.E.2d 43

OMNISOURCE CORPORATION, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. FORTUNE TRADING COMPANY, INC., Appellee (Defendant Below).

No. 02A04-8804-CV-121.

Court of Appeals of Indiana Fourth District.

April 26, 1989.

John F. Lyons, Barrett & McNagny, Fort Wayne, for appellant.

CHEZEM, Judge.

Statement of Case

Appellant/OmniSource appeals from a judgment in favor of appellee/Fortune dismissing appellant's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over appellee.

We reverse. ¹

Issue

Whether the trial court erred when granting the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over appellee.

Facts

Sometime prior to February, 1986, appellee, Fortune Trading Company, Inc. (hereinafter, Fortune) owned and operated a wire reclamation business and scrap processing facility in Indiana. A representative of Fortune met with a representative of OmniSource Corporation (hereinafter, OmniSource), in Indiana and had several telephone conversations regarding various transactions for scrap metal, prior to February, 1986.

On February 5, 1986, Fortune made the initial telephone call regarding the currently disputed transaction, soliciting OmniSource to sell scrap metal to Fortune. At this time, OmniSource was in Indiana, but Fortune no longer owned the wire reclamation and scrap processing facility in Indiana. Fortune, a Maryland corporation had its principal place of business in Rockville, Maryland. OmniSource, an Indiana corporation had its principal place of business in Fort Wayne.

After Fortune's initial telephone call, a series of telephone calls occurred between Fortune and OmniSource regarding this disputed transaction, culminating in an oral agreement which was later reduced to writing.

The disputed transaction involved scrap wire owned by OmniSource that Fortune bought and transported out of the country. All of the scrap that Fortune arranged to buy from OmniSource was located outside of Indiana. OmniSource directed Fortune to take the scrap from the out-of-state locations, knowing that Fortune intended to transport the scrap to Japan and Taiwan to sell to prearranged buyers. The only Fortune representative to contact OmniSource regarding this transaction was never in Indiana during the relevant time.

This dispute began when, after the scrap was delivered to Japan and Taiwan, it was rejected by the buyers for alleged failure to conform to certain previously agreed specifications. Fortune then refused to pay OmniSource the agreed price. On November 26, 1986, OmniSource filed a complaint against Fortune asking for judgment against Fortune for $34,272.45.

On December 29, 1986, Fortune answered raising three defenses, one of which was that Indiana lacked personal jurisdiction over Fortune. In the same pleading, Fortune counterclaimed for breach of contract, asking $60,787.58 in damages and dismissal of all claims with prejudice. July 24, 1987, Fortune filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. A hearing was held on December 14, 1987 where the trial court granted the Motion to Dismiss, without prejudice. OmniSource filed a Motion to Correct Errors on February 11, 1988, which was denied by the trial court on March 11, 1988.

Discussion

OmniSource contends that the trial court erred by granting Fortune's Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. In deciding whether or not Indiana should exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation we are guided by Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985), 471 U.S. 462, 477, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2185, 85 L.Ed.2d 528.

First, one must determine whether "minimum contacts" within a forum have been established. In doing that, one must consider "these factors--prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of the contract and the parties' actual course of dealing." Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at 479, 105 S.Ct. at 2185. Then, "once it has been decided that a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum state, these contacts may be considered in the light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with 'fair play and substantial justice.' " Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at 476, 105 S.Ct. at 2184, quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945), 326 U.S. 310, 320, 66 S.Ct. 154, 160, 90 L.Ed. 95.

Indiana's standard for deciding whether personal jurisdiction is appropriate is set out in Woodmar Coin Center, Inc. v. Owen (1983), Ind.App., 447 N.E.2d 618, 621:

To exercise jurisdiction consonant with due process over...