Plaintiffs have shown no contact with the State of Arkansas other than the fact that Boto's customer, Hobby Lobby, and perhaps other Boto customers, distributed Boto's goods to its stores in Arkansas. 1995). plate hobbylobby Boto contends that the mere fact that it manufactured the tree and distributed it to Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., does not provide a sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction. Aftanase v. Economy Baler Co., 343 F.2d 187 (8th Cir. However, they contend the facts here show more than just foreseeability. The Eighth Circuit stated that, if Giotis was the law, applying it to the facts of the case before it was quick work. 95 (1945). Boto states it is unclear at this time whether or not it manufactured the tree in question. This wrongful death products liability case was filed as a result of the occurrence. Thus, they contend this case is closely akin to that presented in Barone and the court should deny the motion to dismiss. . Sometimes the identifying labels are provided by the purchaser and placed on the product boxes by Boto. hobbylobby . The complaint alleges Hobby Lobby is liable under various theories including negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability. switch plates rust plate iron cast double lobby hobby

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. Kids, Inc., 22 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. By order entered on March 13, 1997, the court took the issue of Boto's amenability to suit under advisement and directed the parties to conduct expedited discovery on this issue.

This company apparently has authority to purchase products for Wal-Mart.

1994). The court is reminded that personal jurisdiction may arise without the defendant's ever stepping foot on the forum state's soil. The orders came from Pacific Resources Export, Limited, a Hong Kong company.

as we have continued to grow by adding stores in other states (geographically surrounding Arkansas) as well as additional stores in the state of Arkansas;" (6) in January, 1995, Hobby Lobby purchased 7.5 foot non-flocked green artificial Christmas trees from Boto which were distributed to all ten stores in Arkansas; (7) the only 7.5 foot non-flocked Christmas trees that Hobby Lobby purchased in 1993 through 1995 were from Boto; (8) the only Christmas trees distributed to Hobby Lobby stores were purchased direct from Boto out of their Hong Kong office, shipped by ocean liner to California, transported to a warehouse in Dallas, and then transferred to a warehouse in Oklahoma City where they were distributed; (9) he is "confident that Michael Kao of Boto . Hosoya sold products throughout the United States by utilizing nine distributors in six states. Kendall B. Jones, Fort Smith, AR, for Hobby Lobby. 1996) (injection of the product into the stream of commerce, without more, would be at best a dubious ground for jurisdiction); Lesnick v. Hollingsworth Vose Co., 35 F.3d 939 (4th Cir. It merely sold to customers who placed orders and then such customers determined where the goods would go without direction, or even input, from Boto. . Co. v. Superior Court of Calif., 480 U.S. 102, 107 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980) has been cited for the proposition that personal jurisdiction may follow a product if it is delivered "into the stream of commerce with the expectation that [it] will be purchased by consumers in the forum state." Hosoya moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 16-4-101(B) (Supp. As the Supreme Court has stated on more than one occasion, the determination of whether minimum contacts exist "is one in which few answers will be written `in black and white. Kao states: (1) he has never visited the State of Arkansas and has had no dealings with any persons in Arkansas; (2) he was not aware that Hobby Lobby had any stores in Arkansas nor was he aware of the location of Arkansas in the United States until this lawsuit; (3) he recalls seeing a map of the United States in a corridor adjacent to a meeting room in Hobby Lobby's Oklahoma office; (4) the products sold to Hobby Lobby were placed on an ocean liner by Boto in Hong Kong destined at Hobby Lobby's cost and direction for a port in the United States; (5) he has no knowledge of how or where the products were distributed or sold by Hobby Lobby; (6) he has no knowledge of whether any products purchased by Hobby Lobby were resold in Arkansas; and (7) he has not discussed the method or manner of distribution of products purchased from Boto by Hobby Lobby with any representative of Hobby Lobby. Boto knows the port of destination and nothing more. The third-party complaint alleges that Boto was the manufacturer and supplier of the artificial Christmas tree. The Bentonville, Arkansas, address was not an indication of the ultimate destination of the products manufactured by Boto.

By memorandum opinion and order entered on February 28, 1997, the court granted Boto's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint filed by Hobby Lobby. 1356 (W.D.Ark. Code Ann. Boto argues that sales to direct customers, even if the direct customers are nationwide retailers, are not the same as utilizing a distribution system. Aaron Ferer Sons Co. v. Diversified Metals Corp., 564 F.2d 1211, 1215 (8th Cir. 1994) (absence of direct sales or shipments is not dispositive if it appears there is some other type of activity which shows purposeful availment). One of the six salesmen was located in Nebraska. 1994), the Eighth Circuit discussed the concept. 2569, 2580, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977). Arkansas, Fayetteville Division. . 1994). It is argued that it is indisputable that Boto knew or should have known that its products were being sold in Arkansas. Boto is a foreign corporation which does business in Hong Kong. Ark. Courts analyze a defendant's contacts with the State under "general" and "specific" jurisdictional inquiries., " 1997 WL 97097 at *10. lobby . 1994). "The test for due process is whether there are sufficient `minimum contacts' between the nonresident defendant and the forum state so that the assertion of personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant is consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. The courts have not abandoned the notion that jurisdiction must be premised on activity deliberately directed toward the forum state or on proof of purposeful availment of the privilege of doing business in the forum state. "When personal jurisdiction is challenged, the plaintiff has the burden to show jurisdiction exists." . . 1977). ., has in the past, including calendar year 1995, sold directly or through a distributor to national chain stores, Target and K-Mart, both of which have numerous stores in Arkansas;" (15) it is my information that Boto is currently selling to Wal-Mart whose home office is in Bentonville, Arkansas; (16) Hobby Lobby receives at its home office a monthly trade publication entitled Hong Kong Enterprise in which Boto advertises and which is also available on the Internet at HTTP://www.tdc.org.hk; and (17) while at Boto's home office in Hong Kong on April 17, 1997, he saw shipments in boxes with a stamped destination of Bentonville, Arkansas. Home Electrical Outlets, Switches & Accessories, Home Electrical Wall Plates & Outlet Covers, 2 Double Light Switch Covers Pink Rustic Toggle Hobby Lobby739990, - eBay Money Back Guarantee - opens in a new window or tab, - eBay Return policy - opens in a new tab or window, - eBay Money Back Guarantee - opens in a new tab or window. Mr. Kao travels to the United States once a year for both personal and business reasons. The Arkansas long-arm statute formerly provided certain listed bases for personal jurisdiction. hobbylobby . Refresh your browser window to try again. 1561 (1948)). Radaszewski v. Telecom Corp., 981 F.2d 305, 309 (8th Cir. 8 9, 104 S.Ct. United States District Court, W.D. Barone sued the distributor of the fireworks, Rich Brothers, and the manufacturer, Hosoya Fireworks Co. of Tokyo, Japan.

Plaintiffs have made no showing that Boto is involved in any manner in creating or maintaining this distribution system or even has any specific knowledge of Hobby Lobby's distribution system. which map has marks and tags which indicate the cities in which we have stores and which indicate the states these stores are in as well as circles around the cities and states in which we have stores;" (5) "Michael Kao has seen this map (which includes Arkansas) and we have discussed our continuing growing business . By affidavit Chan Kit Fun states that Boto often sells products under a "private label" arrangement. 55, in Rogers, Arkansas. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, In Smith v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 968 F. Supp. The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas recently, Full title:Woodrow W. SMITH, Administrator of the Estate of Mary Elizabeth Smith, Court:United States District Court, W.D.

1986) in which the court held that "[a] seller at the head of a distribution network thus satisfies the requisite foreseeability of due process where it `delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that [these products] will be purchased by consumers in the forum state.'".

1995); Barone v. Rich Bros. Interstate Display Fireworks Co., 25 F.3d 610, 612 (8th Cir. Plaintiffs have presented no evidence suggesting Boto has any input into the decision making process of its customers regarding the manner or places of distribution. Barone, 25 F.3d at 614. trees would be distributed to our stores in Arkansas and those trees sold by our stores in Arkansas thereby generat[e] revenue to Boto . 1996). Plaintiffs contend that such imputed knowledge of foreseeability can be drawn from the huge volume of business Boto does each year with national retailers and its efforts to "nurture" its business relationship with Hobby Lobby. The labels on the boxes which referred to Bentonville, Arkansas, are "private labels" which were furnished to Boto by Pacific Resources Export Limited. The theory provides an "analytical tool useful in cases in which the defendant's contacts are the result of establishing a distribution network in the forum State for the sale of defendant's products. Neither the Eighth Circuit in Barone nor the Supreme Court in Asahi has given the stream of commerce theory the breadth suggested by plaintiffs. In that case Barone was injured in Nebraska when a fireworks display he was helping set up went awry. Bell Paper Box, Inc. v. U.S.

The parties stress the fact that Boto advertises in Arkansas via the "World-Wide Web," Boto currently is shipping products marked with a destination of "Bentonville, Arkansas," and Boto sells to various nationwide distributors that maintain stores in Arkansas. However, Boto has only dealt with Pacific Resources. See CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. Hobby Lobby seeks indemnity from Boto as a manufacturer pursuant to Ark. Unlike the situation in Barone, supra, Boto did not purposefully set up a network of distributors designed to blanket the country or a particular region of the country. With regard to the alleged sales to Wal-Mart, Boto points out it dealt only with Pacific Resources Export Limited. The Supreme Court in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102, 107 S.Ct. Plaintiffs concede that the Eighth Circuit has consistently held that more than mere foreseeability is required to establish personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant. The issue is now ready for resolution. The court held that it did. Plaintiffs contend that Boto has significant connections with Arkansas. During these trips, he makes contact with several of Boto's major customers, including Hobby Lobby.

Boto has no agent for service of process in Arkansas. denied, 513 U.S. 1151, 115 S.Ct. Subsequently, the court allowed Hobby Lobby to file an amended third-party complaint against Boto and Everstar also asserting claims against Boto. Rich Brothers purchased about $100,000 annually. 1996) (citation omitted). was aware that Boto'[s] . Viam Corp. v. Iowa Export-Import Trading Co., 84 F.3d 424, 427 (Fed. 1997), the Court found that an advertisement in a trade publication was an insufficient contact with the forum state because the defendant "did not contract to sell any goods or services to any citizens of Arkansas over the Internet site.". . View cart for details. The long-arm statute has been amended and now provides that "[t]he courts of this state shall have personal jurisdiction of all persons, and all causes of action or claims for relief, to the maximum extent permitted by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution." laser cut metal switch lobby hobby plate plates single plate It did not advertise in Nebraska or directly send any products in Nebraska. For the reasons stated, the motion to dismiss will be granted by a separate order entered concurrently herewith. Kilcrease v. Butler, 293 Ark. Kulko v. California Superior Ct., 436 U.S. 84, 92, 98 S.Ct. It noted: The Eighth Circuit went on to decide whether Giotis correctly stated the law in view of Asahi. It asks the court to consider the following facts: (1) Boto is a foreign corporation doing business in Hong Kong; (2) it is not authorized to do business in Arkansas; (3) it has no United States customers with a principal place of business in Arkansas for the five years preceding this lawsuit; (4) all sales made to customers in the United States are sold on FOB (free on board) Hong Kong terms at the customer's direction and cost, Boto arranges for the products to be loaded on shipping liners in Hong Kong bound for a port of the customer's choosing; (5) Boto has no knowledge regarding the method or manner of any further transportation or distribution of the products made by its customers; (6) no employee, representative, or agent of Boto has ever set foot in Arkansas or negotiated any sales with corporations located in Arkansas; (7) all contact between Hobby Lobby and Boto has been in Oklahoma or between Hong Kong and Oklahoma; (8) Boto makes no effort to study the United States market but does receive requests for products and features in Hong Kong directly from its customers; and (9) it does not have a distribution system fifty percent of its sales in the United States are through direct channels, the remaining sales are through a third-party importer. About sixteen percent of the fireworks purchased were eventually resold into Nebraska. Hobby Lobby is not a distributor of Boto's products; rather, Hobby Lobby is itself a retailer. Boto contends the court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has determined that satisfaction of the due process standard may be measured by weighing the following factors: the nature and quality of defendant's contacts with the forum state; quantity of contacts; source and connection of the cause of action with those contacts; and, to a lesser degree, the interest of the forum state in providing a forum for its residents; and the convenience of the parties. 16-4-101 (Repl. We found that Hobby Lobby had advanced no facts tending to show that this court had personal jurisdiction over Boto. from the sale of these trees in Arkansas;" (10) he is "confident" that Michael Kao has known since 1985 the trees it sold Hobby Lobby were distributed among "all our stores including the stores we had in Arkansas;" (11) in 1995 Boto was aware that we had stores in nine states, all of which surround Arkansas; (12) in 1995 Hobby Lobby did $2.3 million worth of business with Boto and purchased 101,100 trees; (13) in 1996 Hobby Lobby did an estimated $3.0 million worth of business with Boto; (14) "[i]t is my information that Boto . 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987).

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 nn. Boto also offers the affidavit of its managing director, Michael Kao, who has for the past few years traveled to Hobby Lobby's headquarters in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. hobbylobby 1994) (must have engaged in some activity purposefully directed toward the forum state), cert. CompuServe, 89 F.3d at 1268. On December 18, 1995, a fire occurred at the Smith residence. lobby Bell Paper Box, Inc. v. Trans Western Polymers, Inc., 53 F.3d 920, 921 (8th Cir. In Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. This case is currently before the court on the motion of Boto Co., Ltd., to dismiss all claims against it.

denied, 513 U.S. 1151, 115 S.Ct. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 8 9, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984) the Eighth Circuit "elaborated on the third factor (the relationship of the cause of action to the contacts), distinguishing between specific jurisdiction and general jurisdiction." . These products in turn are distributed by Hobby Lobby to its retail outlets. However for purposes of this motion, Boto assumes it manufactured the tree in question. Code Ann. It is alleged that the fire began in the vicinity of the artificial Christmas tree. However, the court in assessing minimum contacts produced three opinions.

1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987) discussed the stream of commerce theory.

As we noted in our prior opinion, the stream of commerce theory of personal jurisdiction is merely a type of specific jurisdiction. Michael Shannon, Rose Law Firm, Little Rock, AR, for Boto. 1982), citing, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. "[A] complaint should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, before trial, if there is any genuine issue as to any fact material to the jurisdictional question."

1994), cert. 454, 455, 739 S.W.2d 139 (1987) (citations omitted). Under this type of arrangement, the products do not bear Boto's name but will instead bear the name of the customer or some other distinguishing mark. Plaintiffs suggest that, by selling millions of dollars worth of its product each year to the country's largest national retailers, Boto is utilizing a significant United States distribution network. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, 97 S.Ct. Hobby Lobby sought and was granted leave to file a third-party complaint against Boto and Everstar Merchandise Co., Ltd. The court's attention is also drawn to the fact that Kao testified that it was foreseeable that Boto's products could end up in any state in the United States. Cir. hobbylobby The district court granted the motion and the Eighth Circuit reversed. 1992). Mike D. Beebe, A. Watson Bell, Lightle, Beebe, Raney Bell, Searcy, AR, Howard L. Slinkard, Rogers, AR, Brian Wood, Roy Lambert, Springdale, AR, for Woodrow W. Smith. Instead, those courts have read World-Wide to require more of the defendant than mere knowledge of the product's entry into the forum state through the stream of commerce. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980); International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. Boto simply sells the goods to the customer and arranges at the customer's expense for shipping from Hong Kong. 1103, 130 L.Ed.2d 1070 (1995); Renner v. Lanard Toys, Ltd., 33 F.3d 277 (3d Cir. 1965). Copyright 1995-2022 eBay Inc. All Rights Reserved. The court concluded the only "fair thing" to do was to allow Hobby Lobby to attempt once again to assert a claim against Boto. In the case of CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. . The court noted that: The court was careful to state it was not holding that Patterson would be subject to suit in any state where his software was purchased; nor did it hold that CompuServe could sue any "regular subscriber of its service for nonpayment in Ohio, even if the subscriber is a native Alaskan who has never left home." Boto contends it is not subject to suit in Arkansas. See also Lesnick v. Hollingsworth Vose Co., 35 F.3d 939 (4th Cir. Seller assumes all responsibility for this listing. cabin