State ex rel. Honda Research & Development Co., Ltd. v. Adolf

• Decision Date: 19 August 1986
• Docket Number: No. 51655,51655
• Citation: 718 S.W.2d 550
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, ex rel. HONDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD., Relator, v. The Honorable George ADOLF, Judge of the Circuit Court of The City of St. Louis, Missouri, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 550

718 S.W.2d 550

STATE of Missouri, ex rel. HONDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD., Relator, v. The Honorable George ADOLF, Judge of the Circuit Court of

The City of St. Louis, Missouri, Respondent.

No. 51655.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division Two.

Aug. 19, 1986.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied

Sept. 24, 1986.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 18, 1986.

G. Keith Phoenix, Jill Rubin Hummel, St. Louis, for relator.

Stephen H. Ringkamp, St. Louis, for respondent.

SNYDER, Presiding Judge.

This mandamus proceeding arises out of a personal injury action brought by Mary Alice Schneider and others against Honda Motor Co., Ltd., the manufacturer of a Honda ATC (a three wheel all-terrain vehicle), American Honda Motor Co., Inc., the distributor of the ATC, and St. Louis Honda, the dealership which sold the ATC.

Plaintiffs later amended their petition to add Honda Research & Development Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation, as a party-defendant, on the grounds that it designed the ATC. Honda Research entered its special limited appearance and filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. The motion was denied.

Honda Research then filed its petition for a writ of mandamus in which it requested this court to direct the respondent judge to withdraw his order denying Honda Research's motion to dismiss Honda Research for lack of personal jurisdiction. This court issued its preliminary order in mandamus and now makes the preliminary order peremptory by ordering respondent to set aside his order denying Honda Research's motion to dismiss and to dismiss Honda Research as a defendant in the underlying action.

No issue is raised concerning the appropriateness of mandamus in this cause of action. Mandamus lies to correct an act done without jurisdiction. State ex rel. Brooks Erection & Constr. Co. v. Gaertner, 639 S.W.2d 848, 849 (Mo.App.1982).

In its points relied on the relator argues that the denial of Honda Research's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is erroneous because Honda Research does not have sufficient minimum contacts with Missouri to justify in personam jurisdiction, and because the contacts of the other defendants with Missouri are not attributable to Honda Research, a separate and distinct corporation. Relator also contends that to allow the respondent to exercise jurisdiction over it would violate its constitutional due process rights and exceed the authority granted to the courts of Missouri under § 506.500 RSMo. 1978, the long arm statute. This court agrees.

A court may not exercise in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant unless there exist sufficient minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum state to assure that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). In determining whether sufficient contacts exist, a court focuses on the relationship among the defendants, the forum, and the litigation. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2579-80, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977). See also Medicine Shoppe Int'l., Inc., v. J-Pral Corp., 662 S.W.2d 263, 272 (Mo.App.1983).

Honda Research did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Missouri to subject it to the jurisdiction of Missouri courts. Honda Research is a Japanese corporation. Although it designed the vehicle which allegedly was the cause of the injuries of the plaintiff in the underlying action, it had no other connection of even the remotest kind with Missouri. Honda Research did not manufacture, sell, distribute, or market any product within the state. The mere "unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state." World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 298, 100 S.Ct. 559, 567, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 ((1980), quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1239-40, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958)).

In World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, the United States Supreme Court held that where corporate defendants, an automobile wholesaler and retailer, carried on no activity in Oklahoma and availed themselves of no privileges or benefits of Oklahoma law, it was a mere fortuitous circumstance that a single automobile sold in New York to a New York resident was involved in an accident while passing through Oklahoma. 444 U.S. at 295, 100 S.Ct. at 566. The sale of the automobile to the New York resident did not constitute the minimum contact with Oklahoma which would subject the wholesaler and retailer of the automobile to Oklahoma jurisdiction under the state's long arm statute. Id. In the case at bar, Honda Research did not even sell anything which entered the State of Missouri as did the Volkswagen wholesale and retailer who were held not to be subject to Oklahoma jurisdiction.

The Court in World-Wide Volkswagen added that, although foreseeability is not wholly irrelevant, the foreseeability critical to due process analysis is not the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum state. Id. at 297, 100 S.Ct. at 567. Rather, it is that the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. Id.

The Court further said that "[t]he Due Process Clause, by ensuring the, 'orderly administration of the laws', International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. at 319, 66 S.Ct. at 159, gives a degree of predictability to the legal system that allows potential defendants to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit." 444 U.S. at 297, 100 S.Ct. at 567.

In Medicine Shoppe International, Inc. v. J.-Pral Corp., 662 S.W.2d 263, this court affirmed a trial court's dismissal of a suit for lack of personal jurisdiction when the contacts of the defendant were much stronger than they are in the case under review. In Medicine Shoppe, a license agreement was entered into in Missouri and a monthly license fee paid to plaintiff in Missouri, and yet this court held that there was not sufficient minimum contact to subject the defendant to personal jurisdiction under the Missouri long arm statute. Id. at 273.

Applying the foregoing precedents to the case under review, this court rules that Honda Research could not reasonably foresee being haled into court in Missouri under the circumstances here and that respondent erred in exercising jurisdiction over Honda Research.

Although respondent does not dispute that Honda Research does not manufacture, sell, distribute, or market any...