State ex rel. Historic Arms Corp. v. Williams
| Decision Date | 26 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 22-0217 |
| Parties | State of West Virginia ex rel. Historic Arms Corporation, Petitioner, v. The Hon. C. Carter Williams, Judge of the Circuit Court of Hardy County, Darrick J. Gust, and Emily Gust, Respondents. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
State of West Virginia ex rel. Historic Arms Corporation, Petitioner,
v.
The Hon. C. Carter Williams, Judge of the Circuit Court of Hardy County, Darrick J. Gust, and Emily Gust, Respondents.
No. 22-0217
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
October 26, 2022
(Hardy County 20-C-25)
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Darrick J. and Emily Gust have brought claims against Historic Arms Corporation,[1] among others, in the Circuit Court of Hardy County, stemming from injuries Mr. Gust sustained in 2019 when an explosive device malfunctioned and detonated in his hand. Historic Arms-a Virginia limited liability company with a principal place of business in Virginia-moved the circuit court to dismiss the Gusts' claims, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. The court denied that motion and later denied Historic Arms's motion to amend its prior ruling. Now, Historic Arms petitions this Court to issue a writ prohibiting the circuit court from enforcing that order and continuing to exercise personal jurisdiction over it. The Gusts oppose issuance of the writ.
Upon a thorough review of the record, the arguments of counsel and applicable precedent, we conclude that the circuit court properly denied Historic Arms's motion to amend its earlier order denying the motion to dismiss the Gusts' claims. Furthermore, because this case does not present a new or significant issue of law, we find this matter to be proper for disposition in accordance with Rule 21 of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
In September 2019, Darrick J. Gust was training employees of the federal Drug Enforcement Agency on earthquake protocols at a combat training facility located in Hardy
County, West Virginia. The training called for Mr. Gust, an employee of Panthera Training, LLC, to detonate an explosive. The explosive malfunctioned and detonated while Mr. Gust held the device in his right hand, six seconds earlier than he expected. Mr. Gust alleges that the premature explosion "obliterated" his hand. According to Mr. Gust, Panthera Training conducted the earthquake training for the DEA as a subcontractor to Panthera Enterprises, LLC, which also owned the Hardy County facility.[2]
Mr. Gust's employer, Panthera Training, is a Virginia limited liability company with its principal place of business in Hardy County, West Virginia. Historic Arms Corporation, the sole member of Panthera Training, is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business in Cape Charles, Virginia. And Robert Starer is both the managing member of Panthera Training and Vice President of Historic Arms.
In 2020, Mr. Gust and his wife, Emily, filed a suit in the Circuit Court of Hardy County seeking damages related to injuries Mr. Gust sustained when the explosive malfunctioned at the Hardy County facility.[3] In June 2021, the Gusts amended their complaint to plead six claims against Mr. Starer and Historic Arms, among other defendants[4]: strict liability - ultrahazardous activity; negligence; negligent hiring, retention, and/or supervision; vicarious liability; joint venture; and loss of consortium. According to the amended complaint, Panthera Training manufactured and assembled the explosives necessary to conduct the earthquake protocol training with black powder and fuse assemblies (the Fuses) provided to it by Historic Arms[5] and/or Mr. Starer.
On July 15, 2021, Historic Arms (again, a Virginia corporation with a principal place of business in Virginia) moved to dismiss the amended complaint under West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), for lack of personal jurisdiction.[6] In support of that motion, Mr. Starer stated
that Historic Arms did not do business in West Virginia and was not in the business of manufacturing, assembling, distributing, testing, or using explosives.[7] In response, the Gusts submitted six exhibits, including an affidavit by Mr. Gust and documents relating to the corporate structures of Panthera Training and Historic Arms. The Gusts later supplemented their response with excerpts of the deposition of William White, former Vice President of Operations and General Manager of Panthera Training.[8]
On July 30, 2021, Mr. Starer moved for summary judgment of the claims against him, individually. Mr. Starer argued that he shared in the immunity afforded to Panthera as Mr. Gust's employer under West Virginia Code § 23-2-6 (2003)[9] because he-Mr. Starer-was also employed by Panthera Training when Mr. Gust was injured.[10] The court granted Mr. Starer's motion, finding that "Mr. Starer brought the [F]uses to the [Hardy County facility] specifically for use in the explosive devices that were necessary tools in the earthquake concussion protocol training offered by Panthera." The court went on: "[i]n short, the [c]ourt can discern no alternative, practical or logical reason for Mr. Starer's (the manager's) actions regarding the [Fuses] other than acting in furtherance of Panthera's business . . . ." The court also found that
"[c]learly, Defendant Starer may have been wearing more than one hat during the time in question" as he "was not only the manager of Panthera . . . but also Historic Arms' [sic] Vice President."
In December 2021, the circuit court denied Historic Arms's motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court found that its exercise of jurisdiction over Historic Arms, as the supplier[11] of the Fuses, was proper under this State's long-arm statutes. Federal due process requirements were also satisfied by Historic Arms's contact with this State. The court also found that Mr. Gust's injuries arose from Historic Arms's contact with West Virginia, and that traditional notions of fair play and justice were not offended by requiring Historic Arms to defend itself in a West Virginia court.
Later, Historic Arms moved the circuit court to amend its earlier order denying its motion to dismiss.[12] Historic Arms contended that the circuit court had erred when it found that Historic Arms's contacts with West Virginia satisfied federal due process. According to Historic Arms, the court's earlier findings in its order granting summary judgment to Mr. Starer necessarily estopped the court from later finding that Historic Arms supplied the Fuses. Specifically, Historic Arms contended that "[t]he adjudicated false allegation that Starer was acting as an agent for Historic Arms when he brought the Fuse[s] into West Virginia . . . is precluded and barred by West Virginia's Doctrine of Issue Preclusion."[13] The Gusts responded with an additional affidavit from Mr. Gust and Mr. White's deposition testimony to the effect that Historic Arms had supplied the Fuses to Panthera Training.
The court denied Historic Arms's latest motion in February 2022. The court reasoned that the Gusts had alleged that Historic Arms had possessed, supplied, and distributed the Fuses before they entered this State-acts distinct from the transport of the Fuses into West Virginia. The court further found that Historic Arms had placed the Fuses in the stream of commerce, so that it had established minimum contacts with West Virginia by distributing them to Mr. Starer who then brought them to West Virginia.
Historic Arms now petitions this Court for a writ prohibiting the circuit court from enforcing its order denying Historic Arms's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
II. Writ Standard
"A writ of prohibition will not issue to prevent a simple abuse of discretion by a trial court. It will only issue where the trial court has no jurisdiction or having such jurisdiction exceeds its legitimate powers. W.Va. Code 53-1-1."[14] "When a court is attempting to proceed in a cause without jurisdiction, prohibition will issue as a matter of right regardless of the existence of other remedies."[15] Stated otherwise, "[w]here a court lacks jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, prohibition is the appropriate remedy to prevent further prosecution of the suit."[16] Despite this, "relief in prohibition is inappropriate where jurisdiction turns on contested issues of fact."[17]
III. Analysis
The personal jurisdiction inquiry usually requires a two-step analysis: (1) have the defendant's actions satisfied this State's long-arm statutes, and, if so, (2) do the defendant's contacts with West Virginia satisfy federal due process?[18] But Historic Arms does not challenge the circuit court's finding that this State's long-arm statutes are satisfied in this case, so our analysis is limited to the question of federal due process.[19]
As the Supreme Court of the United States has explained, "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause limits a state court's power to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant."[20] It "sets the outer boundaries of a state court's authority to proceed against a defendant because the assertion of jurisdiction subjects defendants to the state's coercive power."[21] Due process requirements are satisfied, and a nonresident defendant is subject to the forum state's jurisdiction, if the nonresident defendant has "certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."[22]A nonresident defendant is subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum state if its contacts with
that state are "so substantial, continuous, and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home" there.[23]
On the other hand, if the nonresident's contacts with the forum state are not substantial enough to grant the forum state general jurisdiction over him, the question becomes whether the forum state can exercise specific jurisdiction. A court may do that if the claims against the nonresident "aris[e] out of or relat[e] to the [nonresident] defendant's contacts or activities in the state by...
To continue reading
Request your trial