Pohl, Inc. of America v. Webelhuth

• Decision Date: 28 June 2007
• Docket Number: No. 20060409-CA.,20060409-CA.
• Citation: 2007 UT App 225,164 P.3d 1272
• Parties: POHL, INC. OF AMERICA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ron WEBELHUTH; Bret Miller; Dennis Miller; Industrial Sheet Metal Erectors, Inc.; and John Does I through X, Defendants and Appellees.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

164 P.3d 1272

2007 UT App 225

POHL, INC. OF AMERICA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ron WEBELHUTH; Bret Miller; Dennis Miller; Industrial Sheet Metal Erectors, Inc.; and John Does I through X, Defendants and Appellees.

No. 20060409-CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

June 28, 2007.

Ronald F. Price and David W. Scofield, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.

Robert F. Babcock and Cody W. Wilson, Salt Lake City, and Steven M. Cockriel, St. Louis, Missouri, for Appellees.

Before BENCH, P.J., DAVIS and ORME, JJ.

OPINION

DAVIS, Judge:

¶ 1 Plaintiff Pohl, Inc. of America (Pohl) appeals the trial court's grant of Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 Pohl, a multinational corporation with its United States offices in Utah, designs and manufactures custom metal panels for buildings. Pohl entered into a contract with T.A.B. Company, Inc. (TAB), a Missouri corporation, under which Pohl was to manufacture a panel system for the new University of Missouri at St. Louis Performing Arts Center (the Project). TAB had a contract with K.C.I. Construction Company, Inc. (KCI), a Missouri corporation and the general contractor for the Project, under which TAB agreed to furnish and install the Pohl panel system. Defendant Ron Webelhuth acted as KCI's project manager for the Project. TAB also had a contract with Defendant Industrial Sheet Metal Erectors, Inc. (ISME), a Missouri corporation, under which ISME was responsible for the installation of the Pohl panel system. Defendant Bret Miller, who initially contacted Pohl, worked as ISME's project manager, and Defendant Dennis Miller is the president of ISME. Thus, under TAB's contract with KCI, TAB was responsible for the construction and installation of a Pohl panel system; under TAB's contract with Pohl, Pohl was responsible for the manufacture of the panel system; and under TAB's contract with ISME, ISME was responsible for the installation of the Pohl panel system.

¶ 3 Pohl began manufacturing the panel system required by TAB and KCI. Pohl worked almost exclusively with TAB, but TAB did direct Pohl to communicate directly with Bret Miller of ISME regarding the Project's specifications and scheduling deadlines. After several months, KCI came under pressure from the Project's owner to deliver the panel system. Pohl warned TAB, ISME, and Bret Miller about its "available production windows" and that it would require "substantial lead-time between verifying field dimensions and delivery of panels." Nonetheless, on February 10, 2003, Webelhuth faxed a letter to TAB and Bret Miller of ISME informing TAB that the panel system would need to be delivered no later than the end of February 2003. ISME immediately mailed this request to Pohl. Pohl responded by letter, stating that "[ISME] has no contract, of any kind, with Pohl. Indeed, Pohl has no existing contract, with any company, that requires it to provide any product or service of any kind, on any date." Webelhuth then met with Bret Miller to discuss alternatives to the Pohl panel system, and ultimately decided to suggest a different panel system to the owner. As a result, on February 17, 2003, Webelhuth hand-delivered to TAB a letter stating that if the Pohl panels were not received by February 19, 2003, KCI would terminate TAB's contract. TAB immediately drafted a similar letter to Pohl and faxed it to Pohl. When the Pohl panel systems did not arrive on February 19, KCI terminated TAB's contract, and TAB then terminated its contract with Pohl.

¶ 4 In a separate action, Pohl sued TAB for breach of contract but later agreed to dismiss the case without prejudice. Pohl then brought the present tort action in the Third District Court against Defendants Webelhuth, ISME, Bret Miller, and Dennis Miller. The complaint alleged intentional interference with contract, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and civil conspiracy. The trial court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Pohl now appeals.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 5 Pohl claims that the trial court erred by dismissing its claims against Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. "Where a pretrial jurisdictional decision has been made on documentary evidence only, an appeal from that decision presents only legal questions that are reviewed for correctness." Arguello v. Industrial Woodworking Mach. Co., 838 P.2d 1120, 1121 (Utah 1992); see also Mecham v. Consolidated Oil & Transp., Inc., 2002 UT App 251, ¶ 9, 53 P.3d 479.

ANALYSIS

¶ 6 Pohl argues that the trial court had personal jurisdiction over Defendants because their conduct fell within Utah's long-arm statute and because "federal due process is not offended by allowing Pohl a Utah forum." To establish specific personal jurisdiction¹ over Defendants, Pohl must demonstrate that "(1) the Utah long-arm statute extends to [Defendants'] acts or contacts, (2) [Pohl's] claim arises out of those acts or contacts, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction satisfies [Defendants'] right to due process under the United States Constitution." Fenn v. Mleads Enters., Inc., 2006 UT 8, ¶ 8, 137 P.3d 706; see also Phone Directories Co. v. Henderson, 2000 UT 64, ¶ 12, 8 P.3d 256.

I. The Utah Long-Arm Statute

¶ 7 Pohl claims that the trial court had jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants' conduct was within the acts enumerated in Utah's long-arm statute. The statute provides:

Any person ... whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who in person or through an agent does any of the following enumerated acts, submits himself ... to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any claim arising out of or related to:

(1) the transaction of any business within this state; [or]

. . . .

(3) the causing of any injury within this state whether tortious or by breach of warranty[.]

Utah Code Ann. § 78-27-24 (2002). Further, jurisdiction over nonresidents is limited to those claims arising from acts enumerated in the judicial code. See id. § 78-27-26 (2002).

¶ 8 Respecting Defendants' transaction of business in Utah, Pohl claims that Defendants' contractual obligations required them to work directly and indirectly with Pohl in Utah. Further, Pohl asserts that Defendants "purposefully directed" business communications to Pohl in Utah and that even though Defendants transacted business remotely, they nonetheless transacted business in Utah. See, e.g., SII MegaDiamond, Inc. v. American Superabrasives Corp., 969 P.2d 430, 434-35 (Utah 1998). The "transaction of business" within Utah is defined as "activities of a nonresident person, his agents, or representatives in this state which affect persons or businesses within the state of Utah." Utah Code Ann. § 78-27-23 (2002). In addition, as Pohl correctly points out, "`[s]o long as a commercial actor's efforts are "purposefully directed" toward residents of another State, [courts] have consistently rejected the notion that an absence of physical contacts can defeat personal jurisdiction there.'" SII MegaDiamond, 969 P.2d at 435 (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985)).

¶ 9 Defendants argue that they did not transact business in Utah because, under the statutory definition, at least some activities must occur within Utah. We agree. Utah Code section 78-27-23(2) plainly states that "[t]he words `transaction of business within this state' mean activities of a nonresident person . . . in this state which affect persons or businesses within the state of Utah." Utah Code Ann. § 78-27-23(2) (emphasis added). Because Defendants have not physically conducted business within Utah, Pohl must demonstrate that Defendants transacted business in Utah by purposefully directing mail or wire communications to Pohl in Utah. See SII MegaDiamond, 969 P.2d at 434-35.

¶ 10 The trial court stated in its memorandum decision that the only communication received by Pohl that supported Pohl's tort claims was TAB's February 17 letter, which demanded delivery of the panel system by February 19. The trial court noted that as for Defendants, however, "the only actions or conduct by them that form the basis for [Pohl's] claims were performed exclusively in the state of Missouri—with persons or entities located in the state of Missouri." In other words, the trial court concluded that the only communication relevant to Pohl's claims against Defendants was the letter Webelhuth hand-delivered to TAB in St. Louis, Missouri, which Defendants did not themselves send to Pohl.² Moreover, in a letter from Pohl to ISME, Pohl's counsel stated that ISME "ha[d] no contract, of any kind, with Pohl." These facts are patently different than the facts in SII MegaDiamond, where the Utah Supreme Court ruled that the defendant had purposefully directed its efforts toward Utah residents because it entered into a distribution agreement with a Utah company and "submitted continuous orders for a product manufactured in Utah." Id. Thus, Defendants did not transact business in Utah, nor did they purposefully direct business communications to Pohl in Utah.

¶ 11 Next, Pohl argues that the Utah long-arm statute is satisfied because Pohl's claims arise out of Defendants' tortious acts, which injured Pohl in Utah. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-27-24(3) (stating that Utah has jurisdiction over any claim arising out of "the causing of any injury within this state whether tortious or by breach of warranty"). Specifically, Pohl claims that Defendants deliberately interfered with its contract with TAB. However, the "causing [of] financial injury to a Utah business `has been flatly rejected by the Utah courts as a basis for exercising specific personal jurisdiction.'" Patriot Sys., Inc. v. C-Cubed Corp., 21 F.Supp.2d 1318, 1321 (D.Utah 1998) (mem.) (quoting Harnischfeger Eng'rs, Inc. v. Uniflo Conveyor, Inc., 883 F.Supp. 608, 613 (D.Utah 1995)). Therefore, because Pohl alleges only that Defen...