Turner v. Nationwide Auto Transporters, Inc., Civ. No. 3-80-461.

• Decision Date: 19 December 1980
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 3-80-461.
• Citation: 507 F. Supp. 396
• Parties: Darrell TURNER and Denisa Turner v. NATIONWIDE AUTO TRANSPORTERS, INC.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee

507 F. Supp. 396

Darrell TURNER and Denisa Turner v. NATIONWIDE AUTO TRANSPORTERS, INC.

Civ. No. 3-80-461.

United States District Court, E. D. Tennessee, N. D.

December 19, 1980.

W. Zane Daniel, Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiffs.

Paul Hogan, Knoxville, Tenn., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

ROBERT L. TAYLOR, District Judge.

In this diversity action plaintiffs seek damages arising out of an automobile accident which occurred in the State of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs are Tennessee residents and the defendant is a New Jersey corporation doing business in Tennessee. Defendant has moved to dismiss because this Court lacks jurisdiction over it.

In diversity cases federal courts must look to the law of the forum state to determine the extent of its in personam jurisdiction. In-Flight Devices Corp. v. Van Dusen Air, Inc., 466 F.2d 220, 224 (6th Cir. 1972). Plaintiff asserts that T.C.A. § 20-235(f) is the applicable law. That statute makes nonresident persons, including corporations, who cannot be personally served in Tennessee, subject to the jurisdiction of Tennessee courts on "any basis not inconsistent with the constitution of this state or of the United States." Plaintiffs therefore argue that the defendant may be sued in Tennessee even though the act giving rise to this suit did not arise out of defendant's activities in this state. Defendant relies upon T.C.A. § 20-220, which provides in relevant part that a foreign corporation

shall be subject to suit here to the same extent that corporations of this state are by the laws thereof liable to be sued, so far as relates to any transaction had, in whole or in part, within this state, or any cause of action arising here, but not otherwise. (Emphasis added).

Defendant thus argues that a foreign corporation cannot be sued on a claim arising wholly outside the State of Tennessee and having no connection with Tennessee. Based upon our examination of the law of Tennessee, we conclude that plaintiffs' reliance on T.C.A. § 20-235(f) is misplaced and that defendant's motion must be granted.

In its brief, defendant relies upon Delaney Furniture Co., Inc. v. Magnavox Co. of Tennessee, 229 Tenn. 329, 435 S.W.2d 828 (Tenn.1968). Delaney, supra, clearly supports defendant's position, but was decided prior to the enactment of subsection (f) of T.C.A. § 20-235. Therefore, that case does not consider the interaction of T.C.A. § 20-220 and T.C.A. § 20-235. Our search of Tennessee law has not revealed an interpretation of these statutes by the Supreme Court of Tennessee. However, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Section, has considered the precise issue before this Court. In Gillis v. Clark Equipment Co., 579 S.W.2d 869 (Tenn.App.1978), the Court held that T.C.A. § 20-220 is jurisdictional, and therefore a foreign corporation cannot be sued on a...