Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05172/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05172-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tyson Foods, Inc.
Plaintiff
Van Luin Foods USA, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

TYSON FOODS, INC. PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 06-5172

VAN LUIN FOODS USA, INC. DEFENDANT

ORDER

Now on the 16th day of January, 2007, comes on for

consideration the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal and

Subject Matter Jurisdiction (doc. #5) and the Motion for More

Definite Statement as to Basis for Subject Matter Jurisdiction

(doc. #7) of Van Luin Foods USA, Inc. The Court, being well and

sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows with respect

thereto: 

1. The plaintiff, Tyson Foods, Inc. ("Tyson"), filed this

action on September 15, 2006 against defendant Van Luin Foods

USA, Inc. (“Van Luin”) seeking a declaratory judgment and

preliminary injunctive relief. At issue in the lawsuit is an

offer by Van Luin to purchase frozen chicken leg quarters from

Tyson. 

Van Luin now moves to dismiss this matter, asserting that

the Court lacks personal and subject matter jurisdiction.

Additionally, Van Luin seeks to require Tyson to make a more

definite statement of its basis for claiming that this Court has

subject matter jurisdiction in this matter. 

Case 5:06-cv-05172-JLH Document 21 Filed 01/16/07 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
2

2. “When personal jurisdiction is challenged, plaintiff

has the burden to show that jurisdiction exists.” Burlington

Industries Inc. v. Maples Industries, 97 F.3d 1100, 1102 (8th

Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). “[T]he burden does not shift to

the party challenging jurisdiction." Gould v. P.T. Krakatau

Steel, 957 F.2d 573, 575 (8th Cir.), cert. denied 506 U.S. 908

(1992), citing Newhard, Cook & Co. v. Inspired Life Centers,

Inc., 895 F.2d 1226, 1228 (8th Cir. 1990). 

Clearly, Tyson, as the plaintiff asserting it, has the

burden of making a prima facie showing of this Court’s

jurisdiction over Van Luin. See First National Bank of

Lewisville, Arkansas v. First National Bank of Clinton, Kentucky,

258 F.3d 727, 729 (8 Cir. 2001); Falkirk Min. Co. v. Japan th

Steel Works, Ltd., 906 F.2d 369, 373 (8 Cir. 1990). To th

ascertain whether jurisdiction exists, one must determine "(1)

whether a forum’s long-arm statute permits the assertion of

jurisdiction and (2) whether assertion of personal jurisdiction

violates federal due process.” Graphics Controls Corp. v. Utah

Med. Prods., Inc., 149 F.3d 1382, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(footnote

omitted). 

Arkansas’ long-arm statute permits the assertion of

jurisdiction to the extent permitted by the Due Process Clause.

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-4-101(B) (Supp. 1995); see also Kilcrease v.

Butler, 293 Ark. 454, 455, 739 S.W.2d 139 (1987). Therefore, the

Case 5:06-cv-05172-JLH Document 21 Filed 01/16/07 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
 Courts are to apply the “minimum contacts” standard developed in International Shoe and its progeny. Hilderbrand 1

v. Steck Mfg. Co., Inc., 279 F.Supp.2d 1351, 1355 (Fed.Cir. Feb. 7, 2002).

3

sole inquiry this Court need make is whether the exercise of

personal jurisdiction is consistent with the due process clause .

1

See 3D Systems, Inc. V. Aarotech Laboratories, Inc., 160 F.3d 1373,

1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Epps v. Stewart Information Services

Corp., 327 F.3d 642, 647 (8 Cir. 2003). th

“The Due Process Clause protects an individual’s liberty

interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum

with which he has no meaningful ‘contacts, ties, or relations.’”

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72

(1985)(quotation omitted). Due process requires sufficient “minimum

contacts” between the defendant and the forum state so that

“maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair

play and substantial justice.” World-Wide Volkswagon Corp. v.

Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291-92 (1980). 

To satisfy its burden, a plaintiff asserting jurisdiction must

establish either specific jurisdiction or general jurisdiction.

Merck & Co., Inc. v. Barr Lab., Inc., 179 F.Supp.2d 368, 371 (D.Del.

2002); Mason v. Mooney Aircraft Corp., 2003 WL 21244160 (W.D.

Missouri)(Slip Opinion)(May 8, 2003)(explaining differences in two

concepts). 

A. General Personal Jurisdiction -- General jurisdiction

arises when the defendant has continuous and systematic contacts

Case 5:06-cv-05172-JLH Document 21 Filed 01/16/07 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
4

with the state, irrespective of whether defendant’s connections are

related to the particular cause of action. Helicopteros Nacionales

de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984). Due process

focuses on the fundamental fairness of exercising jurisdiction over

a nonresident defendant, and therefore, "it is essential in each

case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully

avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the

forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its

laws." Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). 

The United States Supreme Court has held that to maintain

general jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, the facts must

establish “substantial” or “continuous and systematic general

business contacts” with the forum state. Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at

416. Such affiliations are construed in light of the Due Process

Clause which permits the Court to exercise jurisdiction only if

doing so would not “offend traditional notions of fair play and

substantial justice." International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S.

310, 316 (1945). That is, a defendant must “reasonably anticipate

being haled into court” in the remote forum. World-Wide Volkswagon

Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). While lack of physical

presence in a state cannot alone defeat jurisdiction, “random,”

“fortuitous,” or “attenuated” contacts do not count in the minimum

contacts calculus. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462,

475 (1985). If a party is amenable to general jurisdiction, then it

Case 5:06-cv-05172-JLH Document 21 Filed 01/16/07 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
5

can be said that it has such numerous contacts with the forum that

it may be haled into court in that forum even for a suit not arising

out of its forum contacts. See Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 416. 

A showing of contacts alone, however, is not enough; a foreign

defendant may still defeat jurisdiction by marshaling a compelling

case that its exercise would be unreasonable or contrary to concepts

of fair play and substantial justice. Viam Corp., 84 F.3d at 429. 

“The test of unreasonableness is a multi-factored balancing test

that weighs any burdens on the defendant, against various

countervailing considerations, including the plaintiff’s interest in

a convenient forum and the forum state’s interest in resolving

conflicts flowing from in-state events.” Id., citing Burger King

Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. at 477. For these reasons, a

“plaintiff must show significantly more than mere minimum contacts

to establish general jurisdiction.” Molnlycke Health Care AB v.

Dumex Medical Surgical Prod., Ltd., 64 F.Supp.2d 448, 450 (E.D. Pa.

1999). 

Once defendants’ contacts with the forum have been established,

the Court considers the following factors in deciding whether to

exercise jurisdiction:

(1) the nature and quality of defendants’ contacts with

the forum state; 

(2) the quantity of such contacts; 

(3) the relation of the cause of action to the contacts; 

Case 5:06-cv-05172-JLH Document 21 Filed 01/16/07 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
6

(4) the interest of the forum state in providing a forum

for its residents; and

(5) the convenience of the parties. 

Epps, 327 F.3d at 648, citing Burlington Industries, Inc. v.

Maple Industries, Inc., 97 F.3d 1100, 1102 (8 Cir. 1996)(addt’l th

citations omitted). In applying these factors, the central inquiry

is the “relationship among the defendant, the forum and the

litigation.” Land-O-Nod Co. v. Bassett Furniture, Inc., 708 F.2d

1338, 1340 (8 Cir. 1983)(quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. th

186, 204 (1977)). 

Finally, even where a jurisdictional threshold can be

established, “personal jurisdiction may be defeated if its exercise

would be unreasonable” and in making this determination, the Court

considers factors such as 

(a) the burden on the defendant; (b) the

interest of the forum state; (c) the plaintiff’s

interest in obtaining relief; (d) the interstate

judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most

efficient resolution of controversies; and (e)

the shared interest of the several states in

furthering fundamental substantive social

policy.

Asahi, 480 U.S. at 113-14; Falkirk Mining Co. v. Japan Steel

Works, Ltd., 906 F.2d 369, 374 (8 Cir. 1990). th

B. Specific Personal Jurisdiction – Specific personal

jurisdiction is distinguished from general personal jurisdiction in

that specific jurisdiction usually refers to a “situation in which

the cause of action arises directly from the defendant’s contacts

Case 5:06-cv-05172-JLH Document 21 Filed 01/16/07 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
7

with the forum State.” Viam Corp. v. Iowa Export-Import Trading

Co., 84 F.3d 424 (C.A. Fed. 1996). 

4. First, Tyson argues that the Court has general personal

jurisdiction over Van Luin. In support of its position, Tyson

argues that:

* Since 2004, representatives of Van Luin have traveled to

Arkansas on four separate occasions with the intent of exploring

future business opportunities. 

* In December of 2004, representatives of Van Luin met with

representatives of both OK Foods, Inc. and Tyson Foods, Inc. and

engaged in discussions related to future business opportunities. 

* In the Summer of 2005, representatives of Van Luin met

again with representatives of OK Foods, Inc. to discuss future

business opportunities. 

* In May of 2006, representatives of Van Luin met with

representatives of OK Foods, Inc. to discuss future business

opportunities using Sea Brothers Chartering. 

* Van Luin has engaged in business transactions or

negotiations relating to business transactions with OK Foods, Inc.,

located in Fort Smith, Arkansas, on two separate occasions. 

* In December of 2004 or January of 2005, Van Luin engaged

in a transaction or negotiations relating to a transaction with OK

Foods for the purchase of 40-60 tons of product for approximately

$431,014.00. 

Case 5:06-cv-05172-JLH Document 21 Filed 01/16/07 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
8

* During the time period of June 2006, through August 2006,

Van Luin negotiated a transaction with OK Foods for the purchase of

approximately 3,827,953 kilograms of product at a cost of

approximately $3,463,520.13. 

* On or around April 14, 2006, Van Luin entered into a

contract with Tyson for the purchase of 3,000 metric tons of frozen

chicken leg quarters at a cost of $0.14 per pound. 

* Van Luin entered into discussions with Tyson on April 6,

2006, regarding the purchase of 7,000 metric tons of frozen chicken

leg quarters, at a cost of $0.14 per pound. 

* On or around April 26, 2006, Van Luin entered into a

similar set of negotiations with Tyson related to the purchase of

7,000 metric tons of frozen chicken leg quarters, at a cost of $0.22

per pound. 

* Van Luin has also contracted with George's, Inc., located

in Springdale, Arkansas, and Simmons Poultry, located in Siloam

Springs, Arkansas. 

In response to Tyson’s arguments, Van Luin argues that its

contacts with Arkansas are minimal and do not show the "systematic

and continuous" presence required by the law. 

This Court agrees. The United States Supreme Court has held

that "mere purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals, are

not enough to warrant a State's assertion of in personam

jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation in a cause of action not

Case 5:06-cv-05172-JLH Document 21 Filed 01/16/07 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
9

related to those purchase transactions." Helicopteros Nacionales de

Columbia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 418 (1984). See also Guinness

Import Co. v. Mark VII Distributors, Inc., 153 F.3d 607 (8th Cir.

1998); Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Maples Industries, Inc., 97

F.3d 1100 (8th Cir. 1996). Further, it is undisputed that Van Luin

is a foreign corporation that is not licensed to conduct business in

Arkansas. Van Luin does not own, use or lease any property in

Arkansas; and, maintains no offices, facilities, phone numbers or

addresses in Arkansas. Van Luin has no employees or representatives

in Arkansas, pays no taxes, receives no mail, and has no agent for

service of process in Arkansas. For all of those reasons, Tyson's

claim of general personal jurisdiction with respect to Van Luin must

fail. 

5. Tyson also asserts that the Court has specific personal

jurisdiction over Van Luin because this action arises directly from

purchase negotiations Van Luin entered into with Tyson in the State

of Arkansas. In response, Van Luin points to case law which finds

that a single contract is insufficient to create jurisdiction over a

nonresident buyer. See Bell Paper Box, Inc. v. Trans Western

Polymers, Inc., 53 F.3d 920, 922 (8th Cir. 1995).

Again, the Court agrees. In this case, Van Luin submitted a

purchase request to Tyson. Tyson contends that despite the purchase

request, the parties failed to reach an agreement between the

parties and, thus, have no contract on the matter. Nevertheless,

Case 5:06-cv-05172-JLH Document 21 Filed 01/16/07 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
Tyson attempts to distinguish Bell Paper Box, Inc. v. Trans Western Polymers, Inc., 53 F.3d 920 (8th Cir. 1995). 2

The Court does not accept Tyson’s argument with respect to the holding of Bell Paper as it relies on the dissenting

opinion. 

10

Tyson contends that Van Luin's actions with respect to the attempted

purchase were sufficient to subject it to specific personal

jurisdiction. The Court does not agree. The Eighth Circuit Court

of Appeals has held that merely entering into a contract with a

forum resident fails to provide the requisite contacts between a

nonresident defendant and the forum state. Bell Paper Box, Inc. v.

Trans Western Polymers, Inc., 53 F.3d 920 (8th Cir. 1995). See 2

also Austad Co. v. Pennie & Edmonds, 823 F.2d 223 (8th Cir. 1987);

Amana Refrigerations, Inc. v. Quadlux, Inc., 172 F.3d 852 (Fed. Cir.

1999). 

6. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the Motion to

Dismiss for Lack of Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction (doc.

#5) of Van Luin should be, and it hereby is granted and Tyson’s

complaint against Van Luin is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

And, accordingly, the Motion for More Definite Statement as to Basis

for Subject Matter Jurisdiction (doc. #7) should be, and it hereby

is denied, as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05172-JLH Document 21 Filed 01/16/07 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>