Opinion ID: 1867006
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The nature and quality of Meikikou's contacts

Text: By placing its products into the stream of commerce, knowing they were bound for United States markets, Meikikou purposefully availed itself of the benefits of the Minnesota marketplace. In Rostad, we noted that [i]n a commercial operation, sales are the most tangible contact with a jurisdiction. 372 N.W.2d at 722. We concluded in Rostad that, although the sales were made through intermediaries, sales in Minnesota created sufficient contacts for jurisdiction because they benefited the defendant. Id. Likewise, the record before us establishes that Meikikou was aware and undoubtedly intended that its lift tables penetrate the United States market. Meikikou undoubtedly intended to profit from the sale of its lift tables in Minnesota; thus, the nature and quality of its contacts weigh in favor of jurisdiction. (3) The source and connection of the cause of action with these contacts Like the defendant in Rostad, the record indicates that Meikikou sought to have its lift tables sold in the United States, contracting with others who made it happen. Unlike the New York dealership in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297-98, 100 S.Ct. 559 (1980), which operated on an intra-state basis even though it must have foreseen that some of the vehicles it sold would be driven to other states, the evidence indicates that Meikikou was aware and intended that its lift tables would be sold and utilized in the United States. Though it is true that Meikikou had contractual relationships only with Japanese corporations, I would conclude that Meikikou should not now be allowed to hide, Rostad, 372 N.W.2d at 722, when it undoubtedly intended to profit from sales in the United States, including Minnesota. As the Arizona Supreme Court said in Leonardo, Due process does not give foreign companies a safe harbor to manufacture goods designed for and shipped to America and at the same time immunize them from the penalties of noncompliance with American safety standards. Such a rule would drive American manufacturers out of business while allowing foreign businesses to produce, with absolute immunity, unreasonably dangerous and defective products for the American market. 892 P.2d at 1363. While I agree with the majority that we should recognize the unique burdens placed upon a foreign defendant who must defend itself in the American legal system and consider this as a factor weighing on the reasonableness of jurisdiction, we should also recognize that the trend toward globalized business must factor into our analysis as well. Increased international travel and shipping, increased global communications, worldwide internet business, and the overall ability of a business to gain the benefits of participation in the global economy are a part of Minnesota's business and consumer environment today. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with the majority's analysis of the stream of commerce minimum contacts factors in our personal jurisdiction analysis.