Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_19-cv-01445/USCOURTS-alnd-5_19-cv-01445-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

REDLINE STEEL, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

NUKON LAZER MAKINE 

METAL SANAYO ve TIC AS, et al.,

Defendants.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

Case No.: 5:19-cv-01445-MHH

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER1

Defendants Nukon Lazer Makine Metal Sanyai ve Tic, A.S. (Nukon Turkey), 

NukonUS, LLC, and Moore Machine Tools, LLC move, under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(2), to dismiss plaintiff Redline Steel’s claims against Nukon Turkey

for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Doc. 8). For the reasons below, the Court denies

the motion. 

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 1 The Court is issuing this opinion during a declared national emergency concerning COVID19. To enable parties to pursue their rights during this emergency, the Court is continuing its 

work. For information about the timing of appeals, please review the information provided in the 

conclusion of this opinion. The Court is including this procedural information in each opinion that 

it issues during the national emergency. 

FILED

 2020 May-14 AM 09:16

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:19-cv-01445-MHH Document 28 Filed 05/14/20 Page 1 of 13
2

A plaintiff who sues a non-resident defendant “‘bears the initial burden of 

alleging in the complaint sufficient facts to make out a prima facie case of [personal] 

jurisdiction.’” Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339, 1350 (11th 

Cir. 2013) (quoting United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260, 1274 (11th Cir. 

2009)). A court must accept as true the jurisdictional allegations in the plaintiff’s 

complaint unless “a defendant challenges personal jurisdiction ‘by submitting 

affidavit evidence in support of its position.’” Mosseri, 736 F.3d at 1350 (quoting 

Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510, 1514 (11th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks 

omitted)). If that happens, then the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to provide 

evidence supporting the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant “unless 

the defendant’s affidavits contain only conclusory assertions that the defendant is 

not subject to jurisdiction.” Stubbs v. Wyndham Nassau Resort & Crystal Palace 

Casino, 447 F.3d 1357, 1360 (11th Cir. 2006). When the parties present conflicting 

evidence, a court “must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” 

Stubbs, 447 F.3d at 1360. 

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Nukon Turkey, a Turkish company, manufactures industrial steel-fabrication

equipment in Turkey and sells and delivers the equipment to buyers in the United 

States through Nukon-US, Nukon Turkey’s exclusive U.S. distributor. (Doc. 20-1, 

p. 2 – SEALED). Nukon-US’s CEO is Matt Moore, and he “is responsible for all 

Case 5:19-cv-01445-MHH Document 28 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 13
3

sales of Nukon [Turkey] equipment in the United States.” (Doc. 1-1, p. 4, ¶ 14). 

Mr. Moore is also the managing member of Moore Machine Tools, LLC. (Doc. 22-

1, p. 14). 

Redline Steel is an Alabama company specializing in “custom metal décor.” 

(Doc. 1-1, p. 3, ¶ 8). To manufacture its metal products, Redline uses industrial laser 

machinery. (Doc. 1-1, p. 3, ¶ 9). In April 2017, Redline “began discussions with 

Nukon[US] to purchase two new Nukon NF Pro Vento 4 Kilowat Fiber Lasers . . . 

along with a Compact Lift Load/Unload Automatic System with 10-Shelf Tower . . 

. .” (Doc. 1-1, p. 4, ¶ 15). Mr. Moore negotiated the terms of the sale. On June 15, 

2017, Redline agreed to purchase the first laser (“Alpha”) for $560,000 and the 

Tower for $293,000. (Doc. 22-1, p. 185; Doc. 1-1, p. 4, ¶ 20). The sale terms were 

memorialized in an invoice providing that Alpha and the Tower were to be delivered 

to Redline’s facility “within 7 days of October 7, 2017.” (Doc. 1-1, p. 5, ¶ 28). 

“To provide capacity while Redline waited for Alpha, NukonUS loaned 

Redline a Nukon Turkey-manufactured laser . . . .” (Doc. 22-1, p. 58). Nukon 

Turkey sent an employee, Furkan Aydin, to Redline’s Alabama facility to oversee 

the loaner laser’s installation and to train Redline’s employees on its use. (Doc. 22-

1, p. 78). Around the time of the loaner laser’s installation, Redline agreed to 

purchase from NukonUS a second laser (“Bravo”). (Doc. 22-1, p. 189). 

Case 5:19-cv-01445-MHH Document 28 Filed 05/14/20 Page 3 of 13
4

According to Redline, it communicated with Nukon Turkey employees 

“regarding when the Equipment would be delivered, installed, and fixed.” (Doc. 1-

1, p. 11, ¶ 74). Redline alleges that Martin Ertufan misrepresented, on several 

occasions, the delivery date for Bravo and the Tower. (Doc. 1-1, p. 15, ¶ 119). 

Alpha was delivered to Redline’s facility on October 26, 2017, and Bravo was 

delivered on November 24, 2017. (Doc. 22-1, pp. 82, 205; Doc. 22-3, p. 223). 

As with the loaner laser, Mr. Aydin traveled from Turkey to Redline’s facility 

to oversee Alpha and Bravo’s installations and to train Redline’s employees on their 

use. (Doc. 22-1, pp. 78–79, 82). According to Mr. Moore, “we would do the 

installation – a lot of the installation. And then when it came to the really technical 

things, then we would have Furkan [Aydin], you know, get more involved to make 

sure that we were picking up everything about the – you know, the more technical 

side of the machine to make sure weren’t any mistakes made.” (Doc. 22-1, p. 83). 

During both lasers’ installations, Mr. Aydin and a Redline employee, Mr. Whyte, 

signed a machine delivery letter providing that the “machine[s] [are] under 2 (Two) 

year warrant[ies] against manufacturer defects from delivery by NUKON LAZER 

MAKINA METAL SAN VE TIC., A.S.” (Doc. 22-1, p. 205 (emphasis in 

original)).

According to Redline, the company experienced post-installation issues with 

both lasers. Redline contends that Nukon Turkey employees misrepresented “when 

Case 5:19-cv-01445-MHH Document 28 Filed 05/14/20 Page 4 of 13
5

the Equipment would be . . . fixed.” (Doc. 1-1, p. 15, ¶ 119). Specifically, Redline 

alleges that Nukon Turkey and NukonUS employees made “vague promises to 

perform maintenance and repair[,]” maintenance and repair that Redline alleges was 

never performed. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 6–8, ¶¶ 39, 51). 

After the parties unsuccessfully tried to resolve the issues regarding the 

equipment, on June 19, 2019, Redline filed suit in the Circuit Court of Limestone 

County, Alabama. (Doc. 1-1). Nukon Turkey removed the case to federal court on 

September 2, 2019. (Doc. 1). 

III. ANALYSIS

A federal district court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction must comply with 

the long-arm statute of the state in which the federal court sits and with the Due 

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

Here, “the two inquiries merge, because Alabama’s long-arm statute permits the 

exercise of personal jurisdiction to the fullest extent constitutionally permissible.” 

Sloss Indus. Corp. v. Eurisol, 488 F.3d 922, 925 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Ala. R. Civ. 

P. 4.2(b); Sieber v. Campbell, 801 So. 2d 641, 644 (Ala. 2001)). 

For specific personal jurisdiction, due process requires that the defendant have

“minimum contacts” with the forum state—here, Alabama; that the plaintiff’s claims 

“arise out of or relate to” those contacts; and that maintenance of the suit not violate

Case 5:19-cv-01445-MHH Document 28 Filed 05/14/20 Page 5 of 13
6

notions of fair play and substantial justice. Waite v. All Acquisition Corp., 901 F.3d 

1307, 1313 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing Mosseri, 736 F.3d at 1355). 

Regarding the requirement that a plaintiff’s claim “arise out of or relate to” 

the defendant’s contacts with the forum, the Eleventh Circuit has held that the focus 

must be on the “‘contacts the defendant [itself] creates with the forum’” and “not the 

plaintiff’s contacts with the forum or even the defendant’s contacts with the 

plaintiff[].” Waite, 901 F.3d at 1316 (quoting Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 289 

(2014)). As a result, a claim “arise[s] out of or relate[s] to” a defendant’s contacts 

with a forum only if the contacts are a “but-for” cause of the claim. Fraser v. Smith, 

594 F.3d 842, 850 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). 

Nukon Turkey had the following contacts with Alabama: Furkan Aydin 

“assisted with the Loaner Laser’s installation in Redline’s Alabama facility and 

trained Redline’s employees on July 21, 2017”; Nukon Turkey manufactured 10,000 

“Tree of Life” products and shipped them directly to Redline’s Alabama facility

(Doc. 22-1, p. 189); Mr. Aydin travelled from Turkey to Alabama and, over several 

days, assisted with installation of the Alpha and Bravo lasers and trained Redline’s

employees on their use; Mr. Aydin signed two letters—one for each laser—stating 

the “machine[s] [are] under 2 (Two) year warrant[ies] against manufacturer defects 

from delivery by NUKON LAZER MAKINA METAL SAN VE TIC., A.S.”; Mr. 

Ertufan “coordinated directly with Redline regarding the Tower’s delivery and 

Case 5:19-cv-01445-MHH Document 28 Filed 05/14/20 Page 6 of 13
7

installation”; Mr. Ertufan exchanged with Redline employees more than 1,400 

“WhatsApp” messages between December of 2017 and August of 2018 (Mr. Aydin 

had similar communications); Mr. Ertufan visited Redline’s Alabama facility in 

March of 2018, accompanied by Mr. Ozturk; in November of 2018, Mr. Ozturk, 

accompanied by Mr. Aydin, visited Redline’s facility to replace the cutting heads of 

Alpha and Bravo; Mr. Aydin made three trips between June 2018 and June 2019 to 

repair the Alpha and Bravo lasers and train Redline employees; and Nukon Turkey 

shipped to Redline’s facility parts for Alpha and Bravo. 

Redline Steel alleges that Nukon Turkey breached express warranties and 

made fraudulent representations to Redline Steel about the equipment. (Doc. 1-1, 

pp. 12–13, 15, ¶¶ 91–96, 119–20). Both claims arise out of or relate to Nukon 

Turkey’s contacts with Alabama. 

Redline alleges Nukon Turkey warrantied Alpha and Bravo for two years 

“against manufacturer defects from delivery by NUKON LAZER MAKINE 

METAL SAN VE TIC., S.A.” (Doc. 22-1, p. 205; Doc. 22-3, pp. 213, 223) 

(emphasis in original). According to Redline, these warranties were included in

“machine delivery letters” executed by Mr. Aydin while he installed Alpha and 

Bravo at Redline’s Alabama facility. (Doc. 22-3, p. 213 – Delivery Letter for 

“Alpha” with, pp. 218-21, Mr. Aydin’s signature; Doc. 22-3, p. 223 – Delivery Letter 

Case 5:19-cv-01445-MHH Document 28 Filed 05/14/20 Page 7 of 13
8

for “Bravo”). Accordingly, Redline contends that Nukon Turkey’s conduct in 

Alabama was a but-for cause of Redline’s breach of warranty claim. 

Redline also alleges that Nukon Turkey employees made false representations 

about the equipment. According to Redline, Mr. Ertufan, Mr. Aydin, Mr. Ozturk, 

and Mr. Aslan misrepresented to Redline employees in e-mail, WhatsApp, and inperson communications, “when [Alpha, Bravo, and the Tower] would be delivered, 

installed, and fixed.” (Doc. 23, p. 12; see Doc. 22-4, p. 5; Doc. 22-4, pp. 9–65 –

WhatsApp messages between Mr. Ertufan and Redline employees; Doc. 22-7, pp. 

8–9; Doc. 22-8, p. 3). The alleged false representations related to equipment sent to 

Redline’s Alabama facility that Nukon Turkey employees helped to install, repair, 

and maintain. Accordingly, Redline’s fraud claim arises out of or relates to Nukon 

Turkey’s contacts with Alabama. 

The purposeful availment requirement for specific personal jurisdiction asks

whether Nukon Turkey “deliberately engaged in significant activities within 

[Alabama] or created continuing obligations with residents of that forum” and 

“ensures that a defendant will not be subject to jurisdiction based solely on ‘random, 

fortuitous, or attenuated contacts.’” Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc. v. Food Movers 

Int’l, Inc., 593 F.3d 1249, 1268 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Burger King Corp. v. 

Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985)) (quotations and citations omitted). 

Case 5:19-cv-01445-MHH Document 28 Filed 05/14/20 Page 8 of 13
9

Purposeful availment is “often found where . . . plus factors connect the 

defendant to the jurisdiction.” Diamond Crystal, 593 F.3d at 1268 (citing Sloss 

Indus., 488 F.3d at 931–33). “Plus factors” include “initiating the contractual 

relationship, visiting the plaintiff’s factory to assess or improve quality, sending 

materials to the plaintiff for inspection or use in shipping, participating in the 

manufacturing process, [and] establishing a relationship by placing multiple orders 

. . . .” Diamond Crystal, 593 F.3d at 1268–69 (footnotes and citations omitted). 

On several occasions, Nukon Turkey sent representatives to Redline’s 

Alabama facility. And while a defendant’s presence in the forum does not 

automatically amount to purposeful availment, “territorial presence frequently will 

enhance a potential defendant’s affiliation with a State and reinforce the reasonable 

foreseeability of suit there.” Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477. What’s more, Nukon 

Turkey’s decision to send representatives to Redline’s facility, and the conduct of 

those representatives, establish a course of dealing between Nukon Turkey and 

Redline, demonstrating that Nukon Turkey was more than a passive seller merely 

placing products into the stream of commerce. See Sloss Indus. Corp. v. Eurisol, 

488 F.3d 922, 933 (11th Cir. 2007). 

Over several months, Nukon Turkey shipped more than one-million dollars’

worth of industrial equipment to Redline knowing that Redline was in Alabama. On 

three occasions, Nukon Turkey sent Mr. Aydin to Alabama to oversee the 

Case 5:19-cv-01445-MHH Document 28 Filed 05/14/20 Page 9 of 13
10

installation of equipment at Redline’s facility. On the second and third trip—which 

facilitated the installation of Alpha and Bravo, respectively—Mr. Aydin warrantied 

the equipment to be installed. These contacts indicate a purposeful connection 

between Nukon Turkey and Alabama. Sending a representative to another country 

is not “random” or “fortuitous.” See Diamond Crystal, 593 F.3d at 1268–69 (citing 

Sloss Indus., 488 F.3d at 931) (noting that a defendant’s visit to the plaintiff’s factory 

to assess or improve quality supports a finding of a purposeful connection between 

the defendant and the forum). And providing a two-year warranty, obligating Nukon 

Turkey to provide to Redline continuing repair and maintenance support, is similarly 

deliberate. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 473 (emphasizing that defendants who “create 

continuing relationships and obligations with citizens” of a state are “subject to 

regulation and sanctions” in that state). Accordingly, Nukon Turkey reasonably 

could have foreseen being sued in an Alabama court for damages relating to the 

alleged warranties for Alpha and Bravo. 

During the two companies’ course of dealings, Nukon Turkey employees 

regularly communicated with Redline employees. These communications 

concerned delivery and installation dates, repair and maintenance timelines, and 

general troubleshooting for Alpha and Bravo—meaning the communications related 

to Nukon Turkey and Redline’s course of dealings that established a purposeful 

connection between Nukon Turkey and Alabama. Redline alleges that during these 

Case 5:19-cv-01445-MHH Document 28 Filed 05/14/20 Page 10 of 13
11

communications, Nukon Turkey employees intentionally misrepresented “when the 

Equipment would be delivered, installed, and fixed.” (Doc. 1-1, p. 15, ¶ 119). 

In intentional tort cases, a single tortious act can establish purposeful 

availment when the tort: “(1) [was] intentional; (2) [was] aimed at the forum state; 

and (3) caused harm that the defendant should have anticipated would be suffered in 

the forum state.” Licciardello v. Lovelady, 544 F.3d 1280, 1286 (11th Cir. 2008) 

(citations omitted); see Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, (1984). Here, Nukon Turkey 

knew that Redline was an Alabama company, with its principal place of business in 

Alabama, and that communication directed towards Redline’s employees would be 

directed at Alabama. For the same reason, Nukon Turkey also knew that the impact

of misrepresentations made to Redline’s employees relating to the Tower, Alpha, or 

Bravo would be felt in Alabama. Cf. Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill, P.C., 74 F.3d 

253, 259 (11th Cir. 1996) (concluding that statements by defendant, a lawyer 

residing in Michigan, to clients the defendant knew resided in Florida supported a 

Florida federal court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant). Thus, Nukon 

Turkey reasonably could have anticipated being sued in an Alabama court for

misrepresentations relating to Alpha, Bravo, or the Tower. 

Accordingly, Nukon Turkey purposefully established sufficient minimum 

contacts with Alabama to be sued in Alabama for breach of warranty and fraud 

relating to the Tower, Alpha, and Bravo. 

Case 5:19-cv-01445-MHH Document 28 Filed 05/14/20 Page 11 of 13
12

Exercise of personal jurisdiction over Nukon Turkey must comport with fair 

play and substantial justice. To determine whether exercising jurisdiction over 

Nukon Turkey would be fair, the Court must consider the burden on Nukon Turkey, 

Alabama’s interest in adjudicating the dispute, Redline’s interest in litigating in a 

convenient and effective forum, and the judicial system’s interest in resolving the 

dispute. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 113–15 (1987). 

Based on these factors, the Court concludes that it is not unfair to subject Nukon 

Turkey to the jurisdiction of an Alabama court. 

First, there are some burdens associated with a Turkish company litigating in 

an Alabama federal court. But “modern methods of transportation and 

communication have significantly alleviated any burden” resulting from travel.

Stubbs, 447 F.3d at 1364 (quoting McGee v. Int’l Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223 

(1957)).

2

 

Moreover, Redline and Alabama’s interests in litigating in Alabama weigh 

heavily in favor of a finding of jurisdiction. Alabama is a convenient forum for 

Redline, and Alabama has an interest in ensuring that its companies have a forum 

for vindicating their rights. 

 2 The Court is issuing this opinion during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, to 

minimize travel, many depositions are being held by videoconference on platforms such as ZOOM.

Case 5:19-cv-01445-MHH Document 28 Filed 05/14/20 Page 12 of 13
13

Finally, exercising personal jurisdiction over Nukon Turkey would not 

undermine the needs of the judicial system or fundamental social policies. Turkey 

might have an interest in adjudicating the dispute here. But considering that the 

allegedly defective machinery is in Alabama and that Nukon Turkey sent 

representatives to Redline’s facility, “it is not constitutionally unreasonable to hale 

[the defendants] into federal court in Alabama.” Sloss Indus., 488 F.3d at 934.

3

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, exercising jurisdiction over Nukon Turkey regarding 

Redline’s claims against the company is consistent with Alabama’s long-arm statute 

and due process. Accordingly, the Court denies Nukon Turkey’s motion to dismiss. 

(Doc. 8). 

DONE and ORDERED this May 13, 2020.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 3 In its reply brief, Nukon Turkey argues that Redline knew that Nukon Turkey employees who 

travelled to Alabama were acting on behalf of Nukon-US, not Nukon Turkey. (Doc. 25, p. 6). The 

argument is not persuasive. First, as stated, the Court must draw all inferences from the evidence 

in favor of Redline. What’s more, Redline’s knowledge that Nukon Turkey employees were acting 

on behalf of Nukon US might affect whether the actions of its employees subject Nukon Turkey 

to liability. But questions of attribution for purposes of liability are distinct from questions of 

minimum contacts. Nukon Turkey purposefully sent its employees to Alabama to install industrial 

equipment that it manufactured, and Nukon Turkey’s employees purposefully made 

representations to Redline employees, representations that Redline Steel now alleges were 

fraudulent. That conduct is sufficient to support an exercise of jurisdiction. 

Case 5:19-cv-01445-MHH Document 28 Filed 05/14/20 Page 13 of 13