Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03012/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03012-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

.. . , ~nitco ~ht!cs Qlourt of c-~ppcals 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

OFFICE OF THE CLERK 

C404 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 

DENVER. COLORADO 80294 

R 0 8 E R T L. H 0 E C K E R TELEPHONE 

(303) 844·3157 

<FTS> 564·3157 CLERK September 20, 1990 

TO: ALL RECIPIENTS OF THE CAPTIONED OPINION 

RE: No. 89-3012 - Taylor vs. Phelan 

Filed August 27, 1990 by Judge Monroe G. McKay, Judge 

James E. Barrett, and Judge John L. Kane. 

Attached is a new page 4 to be substituted for page 4 in 

the original opinion which was sent to you on August 27, 1990. 

RLH:pf:mt 

Enclosure 

Very truly yours, 

trick Fisher 

Chief Deputy Clerk 

Appellate Case: 89-3012 Document: 01019377738 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 1 
• 

• . . 

on Michael A. Taylor and his sister, Jessica, setting them afire, 

killing Jessica and severely injuring Michael A. Taylor. After 

his rampage, Moore committed suicide. He left behind a note in 

which he said "[i]f I'm going to get blamed for something, I want 

to make sure I did it." 

The Taylors brought this personal injury, wrongful death and 

damage action against Detective Phelan, individually, and as a 

member of the Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department, and 

against the Board and its members individually, basing their 

federal claims on 42 u.s.c. § 1983 and the state claims under the 

Kansas Tort Claims Act with jurisdiction based on diversity. 1 

Upon defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, the 

district court dismissed the claims for lack of personal 

jurisdiction over the defendants. 2 (October Order). 

This court reviews a district court's ruling on a 

jurisdictional question de novo. Ten Mile Indus. Park v. Western 

Plains Serv. Corp., 810 F.2d 1518, 1524 (lOth Cir. 1987). In 

1 The case was originally filed in the District Court of 

Wyandotte County, Kansas, but was later removed by defendants to 

the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. 

2 Because the parties had presented matters outside the 

pleadings which were considered by the court, the court treated 

the defendants' motion as one for summary judgment, pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The Taylors claim that it was error for 

the district court to convert defendants' motion from one for 

judgment on the pleadings to one for summary judgment without 

informing them and allowing them time to complete the initial 

phases of discovery. We do not resolve this issue because, even 

if the conversion were erroneous, such error was harmless since 

the trial court granted the Taylors' motion for reconsideration 

and reexamined the record in light of all of the newly available 

evidence. After this reconsideration the court, on December 16, 

1988, entered another order reaffirming its earlier findings 

(December Order). 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-3012 Document: 01019377738 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 2 
PUBLISH 

FILED 

Uoired s.cates Court of Appeals 

renth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

AUG 2 7 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Cleek FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

. MICHAEL TAYLOR and BRENDA TAYLOR, in 

their own right and as parents and 

natural guardians of MICHAEL ANDREW 

TAYLOR, a minor, and as the surviving 

mother and father and surviving heirs 

at law and co-administrators of the 

Estate of JESSICA TAYLOR, deceased, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

PAULA PHELAN, an individual and a ) 

member of the Kansas City, Missouri ) 

Police Department; RICHARD BERKELY, ) 

ARTHUR D. BROOKFIELD, II, BEVERLEY ) 

BARKER NICKS, JOHN L. WILLIAMS, ) 

MICHAEL B. MEADE, and LARRY JOINER, ) 

as individuals and a~ Members ) 

constituting THE KANSAS CITY, ) 

MISSOURI BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS, ) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

No. 89-3012 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Kansas 

(D.C. No. 88-2150-0) 

Robert B. Van Cleave (Frank D. Menghini and Jeanne Gorman Rau with 

him on the brief) of McAnany, Van Cleave & Phillips, P.A., Kansas 

City, Kansas, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. 

J. Emmett Logan of Morrison, Heeke~, Curtis, Kuder, & Parrish, 

Overland Park, Kansas, for Defendants-Appellees. 

Before McKAY and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and KANE,* District 

Judge. 

Appellate Case: 89-3012 Document: 01019377738 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 3 
•· 

*Honorable John L. Kane, Senior 

District Court for the District 

designation. 

PER CURIAM. 

District Judge, United States 

of Colorado, sitting by 

This appeal is from a grant of summary judgment in favor of 

defendants, Ms. Paula Phelan, a detective of the Kansas City, 

Missouri, Police Department (Detective Phelan), and the Kansas 

City, Missouri, Board of Police Commissioners, as a Board and as 

individuals (Board), on the ground that the United States District 

Court for the District of Kansas did not have personal 

jurisdiction over the Missouri defendants. Plaintiffs argue on 

appeal that there were sufficient contacts between the defendants 

and the State of Kansas to support personal jurisdiction 

consistent with the dictates of due process. Because we hold that 

the plaintiffs have made the requisite prima facie showing 

necessary to establish personal jurisdiction, we reverse. 

The facts we recite here are either agreed to by the parties 

or contained in evidence properly presented by the losing party in 

response to the motion for summary judgment. The latter are taken 

as true only for purposes of determining whether summary judgment 

should have been granted. On or about September 25, 1986, 

plaintiffs Michael and Brenda Taylor became aware that an 

individual named Michael Moore had sexually assaulted their 

daughter, Jessica Taylor. The assault had taken place in Kansas 

City, Missouri. After learning of the assault, the Taylors 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-3012 Document: 01019377738 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 4 
reported the incident to the appropriate law enforcement agency, 

the Kansas City, ~ssouri, Police Department. 

The case was assigned to Detective Phelan, a member of the 

Sex Crimes Unit. During the course of the investigation, there 

were repeated telephone contacts between the Taylors in Kansas and 

Detective Phelan and other members of the Police Department in 

Missouri. As a result of interviews with Jessica and her parents, 

the police eventually determined that there was probable cause to 

issue a warrant for the arrest of Michael Moore. 

On or about October 31, 1986, Detective Phelan, accompanied 

by Detective Wessler, who is not named in this suit, came to the 

Taylors' home in Kansas City, Kansas. During the visit, Detective 

Phelan assured Mrs. Taylor that everything was being done to 

investigate the matter and that a warrant would be issued for 

Moore's arrest. Detective Phelan also assured Mrs. Taylor that 

her family would be safe from harm. Mrs. Taylor has stated in an 

affidavit that, based on this assurance, neither she nor her 

husband took any precautionary measures for their safety or that 

of their children. 

On November 7, 1986, Detective Wessler telephoned Michael 

Moore at Moore's Kansas home and informed him that a warrant had 

been issued for his arrest. Moore told Wessler that he would 

voluntarily surrender the next day, which he failed to do. There 

was no further contact between Detective Wessler or any other 

member of the police department and Moore. During the night of 

November 12, 1986, Moore broke into the Taylor's house, shot 

Michael Taylor· in the head, injured Brenda Taylor, poured gasoline 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-3012 Document: 01019377738 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 5 
on Michael A. Taylor and his sister, Jessica, setting them afire, 

killing Jessica and severely injuring Michael A. Taylor. After 

his rampage, Taylor committed suicide. He left behind a note in 

which he said "[i]f I'm going to get blamed for something, I want 

to make sure I did it." 

The Taylors brought this personal injury, wrongful death and 

damage action against Detective Phelan, individually, and as a 

member of the Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department, and 

against the Board and its members individually, basing their 

federal claims on 42 u.s.c. S 1983 and the state claims under the 

Kansas Tort Claims Act with jurisdiction based on diversity. 1 

Upon defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, the 

district court dismissed the 

jurisdiction over the defendants. 

claims for lack of 

(October Order). 2 

This court reviews a district court's ruling 

personal 

on a 

jurisdictional question de novo. Ten Mile Indus. Park v. Western 

Plains Serv. Corp., 810 F.2d 1518, 1524 (lOth Cir. 1987). In 

1 The case was originally filed in the District Court of 

Wyandotte County, Kansas, but was later removed by defendants to 

the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. 

2 Because the parties had presented matters outside the 

pleadings which were considered by the court, the court treated 

the defendants' motion as one for summary judgment, pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The Taylors claim that it was error for 

the district court to convert defendants' motion from one for 

judgment on the pleadings to one for summary judgment without 

informing them and allowing them time to complete the initial 

phases of discovery. We do not resolve this issue because, even 

if the conversion were erroneous, such error was harmless since 

the trial court granted the Taylors' motion for reconsideration 

and reexamined the record in light of all of the newly available 

evidence. After this reconsideration the court, on December 16, 

1988·; entered another order reaffirming its earlier findings 

(December Order). 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-3012 Document: 01019377738 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 6 
conducting this review, we are guided by the following standard: 

[t]he plaintiff bears the burden of establishing 

personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Prior to 

trial, however, when a motion to dismiss for lack of 

jurisdiction is decided on the basis of affidavits and 

other written materials, the plaintiff need only make a 

prima facie showing. The allegations in the complaint 

must be taken as true to the extent they are 

uncontroverted by the defendant's affidavits. If the 

parties present conflicting affidavits, all factual 

disputes are resolved in the plaintiff's favor, and the 

plaintiff's prima facie showing is sufficient 

notwithstanding the contrary presentation by the moving 

party. 

Behagen v. Amateur Basketball Ass'n, 744 F.2d 731, 733 (lOth Cir. 

1984)(citations omitted), cert. denied 471 u.s. 1010 (1985). Our 

task thus becomes to determine from the parties' affidavits and 

other written materials whether the plaintiffs have established a 

prima facie case of minimum contacts with the forum state by each 

defendant sufficient to justify jurisdiction. Rambo v. American 

S. Ins. Co., 839 F.2d 1415, 1417 (lOth Cir. 1988). 

Whether a federal court has personal jurisdiction over a 

nonresident defendant in a diversity action is determined by the 

law of the forum state. Yarbrough v. Elmer Bunker & Assocs., 669 

F.2d 614, 616 (lOth Cir. 1982): see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). 

The district court in a diversity action may not exercise personal 

jurisdiction unless it complies with both the forum state's 

long-arm statute and the Constitution. Eguifax Servs., Inc. v. 

Hitz, 1990 WL 72646 at 12 (lOth Cir. June 4, 1990). 3 A two-step 

3 The Kansas long-arm statute, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-308(b) 

(1983 & Supp. 1989), is liberally construed to allow the exercise 

of personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the full 

extent permitted by the due process clause of the fourteenth 

amendment. Volt Delta Resources, Inc. v. Devine, 740 P.2d 1089, 

1092 (Kan. 1987). 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-3012 Document: 01019377738 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 7 
analysis is therefore required: first, does the defendant's 

conduct fall within the scope of the relevant section of the 

long-arm statute; and second, does the exercise of personal 

jurisdiction comport with the requirements of due process? Volt 

Delta Resources. Inc. v. Devine, 740 P.2d 1089, 1093 (Kan. 1987). 

Application of the Kansas lonq-ar.m statute 

Defendants argue that the Kansas long-arm statute does not 

apply to their activities. In finding otherwise, the district 

court relied on Ling v. Jan's Liquors, 703 P.2d 731 (Kan. 1985). 

In Ling the Kansas Supreme Court upheld Kansas jurisdiction over a 

Missouri liquor vendor who had sold liquor to a minor. The 

intoxicated minor drove into Kansas and caused injury to the 

plaintiff in Kansas. The court held that "it is possible to bring 

suit in Kansas to recover damages for injuries occurring in this 

state which resulted from negligent conduct outside the state," 

concluding that an injury which occurs in Kansas as a result of a 

tortious act outside the state amounts to a "tortious act within 

the state," thus falling within subsection (2) of the long-arm 

statute. Id. at 734. See Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-308(b)(2) 

( 1983 & Supp • 1989) • 

The district court here, noting that Kansas interprets the 

term "tortious act" broadly, concluded that defendants' alleged 

negligence in Missouri resulted in plaintiffs' injuries in Kansas, 

thus bringing defendants' acts "squarely within the Kansas 

long-arm statute." October Order at 7. Because there is no 

indication of any retreat under Kansas law from the broad reading 

of the tortious act section of the state long-arm statute as put 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-3012 Document: 01019377738 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 8 
forth in Ling, see Volt Delta Resources, 740 P.2d at 1092; Ray v. 

Heilman, 660 F. Supp. 122, 123-24 (D. Kan. 1987) (applying Kansas 

law), we conclude that the district court was correct in 

determining that the Kansas long-arm statute applies to the 

defendants' actions. 

Constitutional requirements 

Since we have concluded that service of process over the 

defendants is appropriate under the state's long-arm statute, we 

must now determine whether the exercise of such jurisdiction 

satisfies the requirements of due process. In finding that it 

does not, the district court relied on a test formulated by the 

Ninth Circuit in Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Associates, 

Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1287 (9th Cir. 1977), and first cited by this 

court in Rambo v. American Southern. Insurance Co., 839 F.2d 1415 

(lOth Cir. 1988). As the Rambo court noted, the test is one for 

specific jurisdiction and provides that: 

(1) The nonresident defendant must do some act or 

consummate some transaction with the forum or perform 

some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the 

privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby 

invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. 

(2) The claim must be one which arises out of or 

results from the defendant's forum-related activities. 

(3) Exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. 

Id. at 1419 n.6 (quoting Data Disc, 557 F.2d at 1287). 

After applying this test, the district court concluded that 

the Taylors had failed to demonstrate that their claims arose out 

of or resulted from the defendants' forum related activities as 

required by the second prong of Data Disc. October Order at 9. 

In arriving at this result; the court focused on the role of the 

assailant, Michael Moore, and concluded that "'unilateral activity 

7 

Appellate Case: 89-3012 Document: 01019377738 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 9 
• 

of • • • a third person is not an appropriate consideration when 

determining whether a defendant has sufficient contacts with a 

forum State.'" Id. at 9 (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de 

Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 u.s. 408, 417 (1984)). The district 

court found that "[d]efendant's investigation activities in 

Kansas, including defendant Phelan's visit to plaintiffs' home, 

did not give rise to plaintiffs' injuries. Instead, plaintiffs' 

injuries were the result of Michael Moore's actions." October 

Order at 9. See also December Order at 6. 

The error in this analysis lies in its assumption that the 

Taylors are relying on Moore's activities in Kansas as the basis 

for their claim against these Missouri defendants and for 

asserting jurisdiction over them in Kansas. It is clear that 

"[t]he unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship 

with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of 

contact with the forum State." Hanson v. Denckla, 357 u.s. 235, 

253 (1958). Nor is the unilateral activity of a third person an 

appropriate consideration when determining whether a defendant's 

contacts with a particular state are sufficient to justify the 

assertion of personal jurisdiction. Helicopteros Nacionales, 466 

U.S. at 417. The Taylors here, however, are not attempting to 

base jurisdiction on what Moore did to them in Kansas; they point 

to independent acts, performed by these defendants in Kansas, and 

allege that those acts ultimately led or contributed to their 

injury at Moore's hands. 

In order to survive the defendants' motion to dismiss for 

lack of personal jurisdiction, the Taylors need only make a prima 

8 

Appellate Case: 89-3012 Document: 01019377738 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 10 
... 

facie showing that their claims "arise out of" or "result from" 

the defendants' acts in Kansas. See Behaqen, 744 F.2d at 733. In 

their complaint the Taylors allege that the defendants' negligence 

proximately resulted in the death of their daughter and the injury 

and damage to·them. Complaint at 8. The Taylors, of course, do 

not allege that the defendants shot them and burned their 

children, but rather they claim that less dramatic, but 

nonetheless real, acts of negligence occurred in Kansas which 

ultimately led to their harm. In particular, the Taylors assert 

that Detective Phelan assured them, while she was in their home in 

Kansas, that they would be safe from physical assault and harm. 

Complaint at 5. Mrs. Taylor has testified in an affidavit that 

because of this assurance, neither she nor her husband took any 

extraordinary precautions to protect themselves or their children 

from Michael Moore. The forum-related contact was the assurance; 

the result of this contact was the Taylors' failure to protect 

themselves from Michael Moore in reliance on this assurance. This 

claim certainly "arises out of" and "results from" Detective 

Phelan's Kansas contacts, and we find, therefore, that personal 

jurisdiction over Detective Phelan ·can be exercised consistent 

with the dictates of due process. 

Our view that jurisdiction over the Board is also appropriate 

rests on a different analytical footing and stems from activities 

in Kansas by both Detective Phelan and Detective Wessler. Both 

detectives journeyed to Kansas and had contacts with Kansas 

pursuant to their jobs as employees of the Board. Detective 

Wessler also made a telephone call to the suspect in Kansas, . 

9 

Appellate Case: 89-3012 Document: 01019377738 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 11 
informing him that a warrant for his arrest had been issued even 

though Detective Wessler did not then have the present ability to 

take Moore into custody. 4 The Taylors submitted testimony from an 

expert in police training and procedure that this action 

"constituted a serious breach of police procedure and by that act 

alone placed the victim [sic] in peril, a fact which should have 

been known to a reasonable police officer." Exhibit 3 to Doc. 78. 

There is nothing in the briefs or the record to indicate that 

the actions taken by the detectives were not within the scope of 

their employment. Under the theory of respondeat superior, a 

principal is liable for the acts of an agent when those acts are 

committed in the course of or within the scope of the agent's 

employment. Baggerly v. Walker, 194 Kan. 61, 397 P.2d 395, 399 

(1964); see also Hamilton v. Neff# 189 Kan. 637, 371 P.2d 157, 160 

(1962). Following that theory, it is well-established that a 

principal may be subject to the jurisdiction of the court because 

of the activities of its agent within the forum state. Wells 

Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 419 (9th 

Cir. 1977); Davis v. Asano Bussan Co., 212 F.2d 558, 563 (5th Cir. 

1954); Daughtry v. Arlington County, 490 F. Supp. 307, 313 (D.D.C. 

1980); see also Burchett v. Bardahl Oil Co., 470 F.2d 793, 797 

(lOth Cir. 1972). 5 Accordingly, we hold that the district court 

4 So long as 

telephone call 

Rambo, 839 F.2d 

it creates a substantial connection, even a single 

into the forum state can support jurisdiction. 

at 1418. 

5 While we recognize that the principle of respondeat superior 

will not apply to implicate the Board in the Taylors' claims under 

42 u.s.c. § 1983, see Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1531 (lOth 

Cir. 1988) (citing Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 u.s. 658, 

(continued on next page) 

10 

Appellate Case: 89-3012 Document: 01019377738 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 12 
.. 

in Kansas can constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over the 

Board based on the acts of its agents. 

In holding the Missouri defendants' contacts in Kansas 

sufficient to establish the Kansas federal court's jurisdiction 

over them for purposes of this action, we recognize that 

considerable factual questions still remain as to any causal 

connection between their alleged negligence and the harm 

ultimately inflicted on the Taylors by Moore. In particular, the 

role of Moore's actions as an intervening cause in this chain of 

events needs to be evaluated. These questions, however, concern 

the foreseeability and probability of the Taylors being harmed as 

a result of defendants' actions, see W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. 

Keeton & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts 313 

(5th ed. 1984) ("It is only where misconduct [such as that of 

Moore here] was to be anticipated, and taking the risk of it was 

unreasonable, that liability will be imposed for consequences to 

which such intervening acts contributed."), and not whether the 

Taylors' claim against defendants, valid or not, arose out of or 

resulted from sufficient forum contacts to permit the exercise of 

jurisdiction without constitutional impediment. These issues are, 

(continued from previous page) 

691 (1978)), the Taylors also bring claims under the Kansas Tort 

Claims Act, Kan. Stat. Ann.§§ 75-6101 through 6119, (1989). In 

contrast to section 1983, the Kansas Tort Claims Act provides that 

a governmental entity shall be liable for damages caused by the 

negligent or wrongful act or omission "of its employees while 

acting within the scope of their employment under circumstances 

where the governmental entity, if a private person, would be 

liable under the laws of the state." Id. at§ 75-6103(a). Thus, 

under the proper circumstances, the Board may be held liable for 

the actions of its agent, Detective Phelan, as well as for the 

actions of its agent, Detective Wessler, even though the latter is 

not a named defendant in this suit. 

11 

Appellate Case: 89-3012 Document: 01019377738 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 13 
moreover, quintessential factual issues more properly addressed to 

the trier of fact for a decision on the merits. Thus, while 

Moore's actions may ultimately be found to have been an 

intervening cause which broke the causal connection to these 

defendants, this possibility does not prevent jurisdiction from 

being asserted against the Missouri defendants for a claim arising 

out of or resulting from defendants' Kansas contacts. 

We hold, therefore, that jurisdiction over Detective Phelan 

in Kansas is not violative of due process standards and, that as 

the employer of both Detective Phelan and Detective Wessler, the 

Board is subject to jurisdiction in Kansas for the torts allegedly 

committed in that state by its agents. The order of the district 

court for the district of Kansas is REVERSED, and this case is 

REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

12 

Appellate Case: 89-3012 Document: 01019377738 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 14