Case Title: Robinson v. U-Haul Intern., Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1997-01-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
Robinson v. U-Haul Intern., Inc.1997 WY 3929 P.2d 1236Case Number: 96-173Decided: 01/09/1997Supreme Court of Wyoming
 
Jeffrey Scott ROBINSON, 
Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.

U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellee 
(Defendant).

Appeal from District Court, Goshen County, Keith G. 
Kautz, J.

Billie Ruth Edwards, Cheyenne, for 
appellant.

Michael E. Warren of Sawyer & Warren, 
P.C., Torrington, for appellee.

Before TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, 
GOLDEN and LEHMAN, JJ.

GOLDEN, Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant Jeffrey 
Scott Robinson's personal injury suit against appellee U-Haul International, 
Inc. was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Finding that the district 
court correctly determined that Robinson had not made a prima facie showing that 
U-Haul International, Inc. should be subjected to personal jurisdiction in this 
state, we affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2]      Robinson presents 
these issues for our review:

1. Did the lower court err in dismissing 
this case without affording plaintiff notice and a meaningful opportunity to be 
heard on the issues upon which the court based its 
dismissal?

2. Did the lower court err in dismissing 
this case on the basis of lack of minimum contacts?

[¶3]      U-Haul 
International, Inc. states the issues as:

1. Should Robinson's case be dismissed for 
failing to comply with Rule 3.03 W.R.A.P.?

2. Did Robinson sustain his burden of proof 
to make a prima facie showing that U-Haul was subject to the personal 
jurisdiction of Wyoming?

3. Was the District Court's dismissal of 
Robinson's case appropriate?

FACTS

[¶4]      On July 10, 1991, 
Sheri Hall rented a trailer from U-Haul in Greeley, Colorado, in order to move 
belongings to Scottsbluff, Nebraska. She listed Jeffrey Robinson as an 
additional driver on the contract. While traveling north on U.S. Highway 85, 
south of Torrington, Wyoming, the hitch connecting the U-Haul trailer to Hall's 
vehicle failed, causing it and the U-Haul trailer to spin off the road. Robinson 
was seriously injured in the accident.

[¶5]      Robinson filed 
suit against U-Haul International, Inc. on February 22, 1995, claiming 
negligence, lessor liability, breach of implied warranties, and strict 
liability. U-Haul International, Inc. answered with several affirmative 
defenses, including lack of jurisdiction, and later moved for dismissal on the 
grounds that it was not the correct party and it was not authorized to do 
business in Wyoming. The motion for dismissal included an affidavit from the 
Wyoming Secretary of State's Office stating that U-Haul International, Inc. has 
never been authorized to do business in the State of 
Wyoming.

[¶6]      The district 
court issued a decision letter on April 26, 1996, in which it determined that 
Robinson had not made the necessary showing of minimum contacts as a basis for 
personal jurisdiction over the non-resident defendant in Wyoming and granted the 
motion to dismiss. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

[¶7]      "The burden is on 
the plaintiff, once the defendant has contested the court's jurisdiction over 
him, to make a prima facie showing that the defendant is subject to personal 
jurisdiction in the state." Amoco Production Co. v. EM Nominee Partnership Co., 
886 P.2d 265, 267 (Wyo. 1994). "The court may consider any allegations set forth 
in the complaint and any evidence which may be introduced in a hearing on the 
issue." Id. "The defendant then must present a compelling case that the presence 
of some other considerations would make the exercise of jurisdiction 
unreasonable." Id.

[¶8]      Robinson contends 
that he was entitled to specific notice that U-Haul International, Inc.'s motion 
to dismiss was challenging personal jurisdiction on minimum contacts grounds. 
Because the motion only referenced WYO.R.CIV.P. 19 and 21 concerning joinder of 
U-Haul of Colorado and did not mention WYO.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(2) concerning lack of 
personal jurisdiction, Robinson asserts that he was not afforded a meaningful 
opportunity to present his prima facie case concerning minimum contacts. U-Haul 
International, Inc. contends that it stated at a scheduling conference that it 
would file a motion to dismiss the case on the basis that it had never done 
business in Wyoming, that generally it was not a proper defendant in this case 
and that U-Haul of Colorado should be the proper defendant. U-Haul 
International, Inc. also contends that its recollection is that the lack of 
minimum contacts was also discussed. The district court instructed U-Haul 
International, Inc. to file its motion to dismiss by March 11, 1996, and ordered 
a hearing on the motion for April 5, 1996. 

[¶9]      The record shows 
that U-Haul International, Inc.'s motion to dismiss does not allege a lack of 
minimum contacts; however, the district court's decision letter addresses the 
issue and dismissed the suit on that basis. Robinson has not provided a 
transcript of this hearing and did not prepare a statement of the evidence or 
proceedings as permitted by WYO.R.APP.P. 3.03. It is his contention that he does 
not need to provide either a transcript of the hearing or a statement of the 
evidence because U-Haul International, Inc.'s motion to dismiss is part of the 
record and does not specify that it is challenging personal jurisdiction. We 
agree with Robinson that neither the motion to dismiss nor Robinson's written 
response to that motion discuss the minimum contacts 
issue.

When a court is 
considering a challenge to its jurisdiction over defendant or over a res, it may 
receive and weigh affidavits and any other relevant matter to assist it in 
determining the jurisdictional facts;. . . . In making its decision on the 
issue, the trial court has considerable leeway. It may determine the matter on 
the basis of pleadings and other materials called to its attention; it may 
require discovery; and it may even conduct an evidentiary hearing. . . . [When] 
no evidentiary hearing [is] conducted, the only burden on [plaintiff is] to make 
a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.

PanAmerican Mineral Services v. KLS Enviro 
Resources, Inc., 916 P.2d 986, 989 (Wyo. 1996). PanAmerican continues on and 
explains that eventually, of course, the plaintiff must establish jurisdiction 
by a preponderance of the evidence, either at a pretrial evidentiary hearing or 
at trial. PanAmerican, 916 P.2d  at 989.

[¶10]   The district court's decision 
letter in this case does not indicate that minimum contacts was an issue 
discussed at the hearing and without a transcript of the motion to dismiss 
hearing or a statement of evidence, the record does not establish that it was at 
issue. However, the rule in PanAmerican requires Robinson's pleadings to have 
made a prima facie showing of jurisdiction. The district court is permitted to 
determine whether a prima facie showing of jurisdiction has been made from the 
pleadings and affidavits and, based on the record, we assume it did so. 
Robinson's pleadings did not include any reference to U-Haul International, 
Inc.'s contacts in the State of Wyoming.

[¶11]   For purposes of comparison, we note 
that in Boyd v. U-Haul Int'l, Inc., 527 So. 2d 713 (Ala. 1988), the Alabama 
Supreme Court found sufficient contacts on a record showing a contractual 
relationship between U-Haul International, Inc. and U-Haul Company of Alabama; 
U-Haul International, Inc. served as a clearinghouse for U-Haul companies 
throughout the country, collecting monies and distributing percentages of those 
monies for U-Haul Company of Alabama; U-Haul International, Inc. provided 
personnel to perform accounting and auditing services and provided company forms 
and stationery for U-Haul Company of Alabama; and U-Haul International, Inc. 
maintained standards for repairing and servicing U-Haul vehicles. Boyd, 527 
So.2d. at 714. Although a prima facie showing does not require evidence to this 
extent, the record indicates that the district court had no evidence before it 
on the issue and correctly determined that Robinson had not made a prima facie 
showing of the minimum contacts necessary for personal 
jurisdiction.

[¶12]   We affirm the district court's 
decision.