Summary
The Northern District of Oklahoma considers Defendant Contractor Tool Supply, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and defective service, or alternatively to transfer the case to the Middle District of Florida. The court denies dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, quashes the original service and orders Red Devil, Inc. to re-serve process, and denies transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The underlying dispute concerns approximately $84,800 in unpaid invoices for goods purchased from an Oklahoma business and delivered to Florida.
Holdings
- The court had specific personal jurisdiction over CTS because CTS purposefully directed its activities toward Oklahoma, Red Devil's injury arose from those contacts, and CTS failed to show that exercising jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
- The court could not determine on the record whether service on the law firm listed as CTS's registered agent was valid under Oklahoma law, so the original service was quashed.
- Even if service was defective, dismissal was not appropriate because CTS had actual notice; the proper remedy was to quash the original service and allow Red Devil to re-serve CTS.
- Transfer to the Middle District of Florida was denied because CTS did not meet its burden to show that Florida was substantially more convenient or that the balance of relevant factors strongly favored transfer.
Questions Presented
- Whether CTS had sufficient minimum contacts with Oklahoma for the court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over it.
- Whether service of process on the law firm listed as CTS's Florida registered agent was valid under Oklahoma law.
- If service was defective, whether dismissal rather than an opportunity to re-serve process was appropriate.
- Whether the action should be transferred to the Middle District of Florida for the convenience of the parties and witnesses under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (21)
- OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada, 149 F.3d 1086, 1091, 1095-97 (10th Cir. 1998)(followed)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472, 474, 477 (1985)(followed)
- Taylor v. Phelan, 912 F.2d 429, 431 (10th Cir. 1990)(followed)
- Intercon, Inc. v. Bell Atl. Internet Solutions, Inc., 205 F.3d 1244, 1247 (10th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Rambo v. Am. S. Ins. Co., 839 F.2d 1415, 1416 (10th Cir. 1988)(followed)
- Hough v. Leonard, 867 P.2d 438, 442 (Okla. 1993)(followed)
- Conoco, Inc. v. Agrico Chem. Co., 115 P.3d 829, 835 (Okla. 2004)(followed)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291, 297 (1980)(followed)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-16 & n.9 (1984)(followed)
- Newsome v. Gallacher, 722 F.3d 1257, 1264-65 (10th Cir. 2013)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 21.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.