United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Western National Mutual Insurance Company, as subrogee of Matthew Eberhardt, Plaintiff
Daesung Celtic Enersys Co., Ltd., fka Daesung Celtic Co., Ltd., a foreign corporation, Challenger Supply Holdings, Inc., a foreign corporation, and Quietside Corporation, a foreign corporation, Defendants.
J. Kennedy, Esq. and Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen
S.C., counsel for plaintiff.
Brandie L. Morgenroth, Esq. and Nilan Johnson Lewis, P.A.,
counsel for defendants.
S. DOTY, JUDGE
matter is before the court upon the motion to dismiss by
defendant Daesung Celtic Enersys Co., Ltd. Based on a review
of the file, record, and proceedings herein, and for the
following reasons, the court grants the motion.
insurance dispute arises out of an alleged faulty water
heater manufactured by Daesung and sold to a Minnesota
homeowner, Travis Hunzeker. Hunzeker purchased the water
heater online from BuyPlumbing.net, which acquired the water
heater from Daesung distributor, defendant Quietside
Corporation. Quietside is based in Santa Fe Springs,
later sold the home to Matthew Eberhardt. In November 2014,
the water heater ignited a fire that caused over $400, 000 in
damages to Eberhardt's home and belongings. Eberhardt
filed a claim with his insurer, plaintiff Western National
Mutual Insurance Company. Western National then filed this
suit against Daesung and its distributors, Quietside and
Challenger, as Eberhardt's subrogee. Western National
originally filed suit in LeSueur County, Minnesota, and
defendants timely removed. Daesung now moves for dismissal
based on lack of personal jurisdiction.
survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case
that the forum state has personal jurisdiction over the
defendant. Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 543
(8th Cir. 1998). In the absence of an evidentiary hearing, a
court “must look at the facts in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all factual
conflicts in favor of that party.” Dakota Indus.,
Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 946 F.2d 1384, 1387
(8th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). A federal court may
assume jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant “only
to the extent permitted by the long-arm statute of the forum
state and by the Due Process Clause.” Romak USA,
Inc. v. Rich, 384 F.3d 979, 984 (8th Cir. 2004)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Because the
Minnesota long-arm statute “confers jurisdiction to the
fullest extent permitted by the Due Process Clause, ”
the court need only consider due process requirements.
See Coen v. Coen, 509 F.3d 900, 905 (8th Cir. 2007).
satisfy due process, a defendant must have “sufficient
minimum contacts” with the forum state such that
maintaining the suit “does not offend traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
Romak, 384 F.3d at 984 (citation omitted).
“Sufficient contacts exist when [a] defendant's
conduct and connection with the forum state are such that
[it] should reasonably anticipate being haled into court
there....” Coen, 509 F.3d at 905 (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
with the forum state can establish personal jurisdiction
under either general or specific jurisdiction. A forum state
has specific jurisdiction when the cause of action
“arise[s] out of” or “relate[s] to” a
defendant's activities within that state. Burger King
Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). General jurisdiction
is present when, regardless of the cause of action, a
defendant has “continuous and systematic contacts with
the forum state.” Coen, 509 F.3d at 905
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Under either
analysis, the Eighth Circuit considers five factors in
determining whether personal jurisdiction exists: “(1)
the nature and quality of defendant's contacts with the
forum state; (2) quantity of contacts; (3) source and
connection of the cause of action with those contacts; and to
a lesser degree, (4) the interest of the forum state; and (5)
the convenience of the parties.” Wessels, Arnold
& Henderson v. Nat'l Med. Waste, Inc., 65 F.3d
1427, 1432 (8th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted).
Stream of Commerce
attests that it is a Korean company that is not authorized or
registered to do business in Minnesota, does not directly
sell products in Minnesota, has not contracted with any
business or person in Minnesota, has not directly shipped
products to Minnesota, has no place of business in Minnesota,
does not have an agent for service of process in Minnesota,
and does not have any distributors in Minnesota. See
Lim Aff. ¶ 1. Western National does not dispute
Daesung's representations, but argues that the court may
exercise personal jurisdiction over Daesung under the
“stream of ...