Court Opinion

ID: 9678904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:35:39.827032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:08.433245
License: Public Domain

SCOTT, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. While the record now before this court does not indicate any “purposeful” or “deliberate” contact with Minnesota, I would remand the case for discovery limited to the issue of jurisdiction.
Under Minn.R.Civ.P. 26.02(1), parties may obtain discovery which relates to a claim or defense. Lack of personal jurisdiction is a “defense” under Minn.R.Civ.P. 12.02(2). The United States Supreme Court has endorsed this procedure under the federal rules. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 n. 13, 98 S.Ct. 2380, 2389 n. 13, 57 L.Ed.2d 253 (1978).
Borderline liquor establishments which solicit Minnesota customers should foresee being brought into court in Minnesota when injuries and damage occur in this state as a result of their negligent business activities.