Court Opinion

ID: 9883369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:40:59.833292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:22.907144
License: Public Domain

NIERENGARTEN, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Madison’s purposeful solicitation of customers in Minnesota through placement of advertisements in nationally distributed trade journals supplies the minimal contacts necessary to establish personal jurisdiction over it by a Minnesota court.
Although it is true Madison does not have any direct contacts with this state, its indirect contacts cannot be ignored. Madison acknowledges that national trade journals containing its advertisements are periodically distributed in Minnesota. Broich, the president of Now Foods, claims he has “ * * * regularly observed advertisements of Madison * * * in several nationally distributed trade publications including Prepared Foods, Food Engineering and Food Processing” (emphasis added). These statements are sufficient to conclude Madison has had a number of contacts with Minnesota which cannot be characterized as random, isolated, or fortuitous. Logic dictates that Madison intended to solicit customers in whichever state these trade publications appeared. No other reason would exist for insertion of an advertisement in a nationally distributed trade publication.
In determining the nature and quality of the contacts between the defendant and the forum state, it must be ascertained whether the nonresidents purposefully availed themselves of the benefits and protections of Minnesota Law Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Services, Inc., 332 N.W.2d 904, 907 (Minn.1983).
Here, Madison purposefully solicited customers in Minnesota; it knew the trade journals would be distributed in this state. Advertising is more than mere inquiry by a prospective seller; solicitation-type contacts may be sufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction. See e.g., Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 779-81, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 1481, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984) (where magazine publisher “has continuously and deliberately exploited the New Hampshire Market, it must reasonably anticipate being haled into court there in a libel action based on the contents of its magazine”).
I would affirm the trial court’s order denying Madison’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Sufficient minimum contacts exist where Madison advertised in national trade journals periodically distributed in Minnesota.