Court Opinion

ID: 9738967
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:06:13.474906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:09.476420
License: Public Domain

HUSPENI, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent because I believe the contacts between Minnesota and Quality Fish are insufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
The majority carves out an exception to the minimum contact requirements for cases involving fraud. This exception overlooks longstanding precedent that requires substantial contacts between the forum and the nonresident, rather than between the parties in the lawsuit. In a contract action, “the contract must have a substantial connection with the state.” Dent-Air Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc., 332 N.W.2d 904, 907 (Minn.1983) (citing McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223, 78 S.Ct. 199, 201, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957)).
I can find no material distinction between this case and S.B. Schmidt Paper Co. v. A to Z Paper Co., 452 N.W.2d 485 (Minn.App.1990). In Schmidt, this court held that the mere fact that a Minnesota resident and an out-of-state buyer entered a contract did not confer jurisdiction. Id. at 488-89. There, the defendant placed four separate orders over the phone after making telephone inquiries regarding the products and receiving a form from Minnesota, and made payments to the Minnesota seller. Quoting the analysis of the court in Mountaire Feeds, Inc. v. Argo Impex, S.A., 677 F.2d 651, 655 (8th Cir.1982) (citations omitted), this court stated:
We conclude that [plaintiff’s] unilateral performance in the forum state is insufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over [defendant]. The sales contracts between [plaintiff] and [defendant] do not constitute a basis for jurisdiction. “Merely entering into a contract with a forum resident does not provide the requisite contacts between a [nonresident] defendant and the forum state.” The commercial contacts in the present case tie [defendant] to [plaintiff], but not to [the forum state]. “It is a defendant’s contacts with the forum state that are of interest in determining if in personam jurisdiction exists, not its contacts with a resident.”
Schmidt, 452 N.W.2d at 489.
Similarly, in Leoni v. Wells, 264 N.W.2d 646, 647 (Minn.1978), the supreme court held that “an isolated purchase of goods from a Minnesota seller will not by itself subject the buyer to the jurisdiction of the Minnesota courts." The court found telephone calls and letters insufficient contacts to exercise jurisdiction where the defendant had not entered the state. Id.
The supreme court reached a similar result in Marshall Egg Transport Co. v. Bender-Goodman Co., 275 Minn. 534, 537-38, 148 N.W.2d 161, 163-64 (1967) where it found telephone conversations and mail correspondence to be insufficient contacts. The court reasoned that the defendant was not the aggressor and had not availed itself of the right of doing business in Minnesota. Id. at 537, 148 N.W.2d at 164.
This case only involves a single sales transaction between a Minnesota seller and a New York buyer brokered by a Florida business. Quality does not conduct any *389independent business activities in Minnesota; it does not sell its product here, does not maintain an office here, and has no employees or agents in the state. Any alleged fraudulent activity did not create an additional connection between Minnesota and Quality Fish.
Unlike the liquor vendor in BLC Ins. Co. v. Westin Inc., 359 N.W.2d 752, 754 (Minn.App.1985), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 15, 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844, 106 S.Ct. 132, 88 L.Ed.2d 109 (1985), Quality did not engage in any behavior such as conducting an advertising campaign on a Minnesota radio station to solicit business. Similarly, Quality did not aggressively seek out Minnesota residents to engage in a complex ongoing financial arrangement such as was the case in Marquette Nat’l Bank of Minneapolis v. Norris, 270 N.W.2d 290, 293-94 (Minn.1978), Vikse v. Flaby, 316 N.W.2d 276, 282-83 (Minn.1982), and Kopperud v. Agers, 312 N.W.2d 443, 445 (Minn. 1981). Rather, Quality merely placed an order for fish for which it ultimately refused to make payment.
Focusing on the connection between the State of Minnesota and Quality rather than between Bellboy and Quality, this court should conclude, following the holdings of Leoni, Marshall Egg and Schmidt that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Quality.
I, accordingly, would dismiss the complaint.