Court Opinion

ID: 9730411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:11:42.702094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:06.310061
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant Baseball Card World, Inc. (Baseball) appeals the dismissal of its complaint against defendants-appellees Jerry Pannette and J's Baseball Cards (collectively Pannette) The trial court determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Pannette.
The facts relevant to the appeal disclose that Baseball is an Indiana corporation located in Anderson, Indiana, which manufactures and distributes sports cards to retailers. Pannette acts as agent and adviser for his teenage sons' business located in Dubois, Pennsylvania, which buys, sells and trades baseball cards and hobby supplies. In 1989, Pannette and his sons attended a national convention for baseball card exhibitors held in Chicago, Illinois. Baseball maintained an exhibition booth at the convention.
A representative of Baseball offered to visit Pannette in Pennsylvania. In July 1989, a representative of Baseball traveled to Dubois. A one-year distributorship agreement was executed in Dubois whereby Baseball would supply products to Pan-nette. Between July 1989 and November 1989, Pannette placed orders for goods by telephoning Baseball. Pannette placed orders onee or twice a week during the time period.
In November, two of Pannette's checks to Baseball were returned because of insufficient funds. Pannette eventually stopped placing orders with Baseball. Baseball sued Pannette in Indiana for treble damages for each of the returned checks and for a breach of contract.
Baseball's motion for summary judgment was denied. However, the trial court granted Pannette's motion to dismiss finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Pannette. This appeal ensued.
As consolidated, the issue presented on review is whether sufficient minimum contacts exist under Indiana's "Long Arm" statute, Ind. Trial Rule 4.4(A), to find that Pannette has submitted to personal jurisdiction in Indiana.
*755A party challenging jurisdiction must establish the challenge by a preponderance of the evidence unless lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint. Alberts v. Mack Trucks, Inc. (1989), Ind.App., 540 N.E.2d 1268, 1270. Because jurisdiction is presumed in Indiana and need not be alleged in the complaint, the plaintiff's burden to come forward with evidence which would establish jurisdiction does not arise until a challenge by the defendant. Id.
Trial Rule 4.4(A) includes provisions for finding that nonresidents have submitted to the jurisdiction of Indiana courts. The rule states in pertinent part:
"Acts Serving as a Basis for Jurisdiction. Any person or organization that is a nonresident of this state, a resident of this state who has left the state, or a person whose residence is unknown, submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any action arising from the following acts committed by him or his agent:
(1) doing any business in this state."1
TR. 4.4(A)(1).
Due process requires that the defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that maintenance of the suit will not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945), 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95. Minimum contacts are required to assure that the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the jurisdiction of the forum state. Hanson v. Denckla (1958), 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283.
This Court outlined the factors to be considered when determining whether fair play and substantial justice would be served by a finding that the defendant has subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the courts of the forum state:
"(1) The nature and quality of the contacts with the forum state; (2) the quantity of contacts with the state; (8) the relationship between those contacts and the cause of action; (4) the interest of the forum state in providing a forum for its residents; and (5) the convenience of the parties.... The first three are the primary factors in determining whether International Shoe standards are met. [Citation omitted.]"
Tietloff v. Lift-A-Loft Corp. (1982), Ind.App., 441 N.E.2d 986, 989.
Baseball contends that it met its burden of establishing jurisdiction because Pannette knew he was doing business with an Indiana company, telephoned Baseball in Anderson onee or twice per week for approximately five months, and mailed checks to Indiana. However, Baseball concedes that, unlike most cases in which jurisdiction has been found, in the present case the parties did not commence their relationship in Indiana; Pannette has not personally appeared or resided in Indiana; the contract which forms the basis for the suit was not executed in Indiana; no contract negotiations occurred in Indiana; and Pan-nette does not maintain any offices or other businesses in Indiana. Pannette's sole contact with Indiana consists of periodic telephone communications to place orders with Baseball.
While Baseball offers a compelling argument that current technology including computers, facsimile machines and telephonic links allows wide-ranging business contacts absent personal contact, the present case does not bear the minimum contacts required so as not to offend " "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" See Tietloff, supra, 441 N.E.2d at 989 (Citations omitted.).2 The contact in *756the present case is similar to that by consumers who place orders for goods from the state in which they reside to national and international businesses. To find that a consumer has submitted to personal jurisdiction in a foreign state or country based upon an order for goods strains the boundaries of the minimum contacts requirement.
Accordingly, the trial court's judgment dismissing the action for a lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed.
Affirmed.
CHEZEM, J., concurs with opinion.
MILLER, J., dissents with opinion.

. - Baseball makes an alternative argument under TR. 44(A)(2) and TR. 4.4(A)(3); however, those provisions are inapplicable. Baseball's alternative argument is aimed at showing that Pannette's business contacts establish jurisdiction.

. Baseball's argument that Pannette's telephone calls alone should establish sufficient contacts is based upon Woodmar Coin Center, Inc. v. Owen (1983), Ind.App., 447 N.E.2d 618. Although on appeal it was determined that the negotiations and telephone conversations provided a basis for personal jurisdiction, this Court found that any error was harmless inasmuch as the statute of frauds would preclude recovery by the plaintiff. Id. at 620-622. Thus, the commentary in Woodmar regarding jurisdiction is obiter dicta. Further, Baseball tacitly acknowledges that under the Woodmar analysis, the contacts here are even more tenuous. As noted previously, Pan-*756nette did not contact Baseball in Indiana, and the contract was not negotiated or executed in Indiana. The decision in Woodmar does not support a finding of personal jurisdiction under the circumstances of the instant matter.