AEROFLEX WICHITA, INC. v. Filardo
275 P.3d 869
| Kan. | 2012Background
- Aeroflex filed suit arising from a government contractor upgrade dispute; TIC moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction after limited discovery; district court allowed discovery but dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Aeroflex contends TIC conspired with Kansas resident Filardo to misappropriate trade secrets; evidence included Filardo's Kansas work time and affidavits from Aeroflex and TIC; court must apply de novo review to determine jurisdiction since no evidentiary hearing was held; Kansas long-arm statute 60-308(b) and due process shown via conspiracy and acts in Kansas; appellate review is de novo on jurisdictional issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden and standard for 60-212(b)(2) post-discovery | Aeroflex seeks prima facie showing; district court weighed evidence. | TIC argues preponderance with weighing of evidence or need for full evidentiary hearing. | Prima facie, not weighing; de novo review. |
| Type of jurisdiction—specific vs general under 60-308 | Kansas has specific jurisdiction due to acts in Kansas and conspiracy. | No meaningful Kansas acts; limited contacts. | Kansas may exercise specific jurisdiction under 60-308(b)(1)(B) through conspiratorial acts. |
| Conspiracy as basis for jurisdiction | Conspirators acted in Kansas, aiding misappropriation; conspiratorial acts occur in Kansas. | Conspiracy involvement insufficient to establish jurisdiction. | Conspiracy acts in Kansas establish jurisdiction under 60-308(b)(1)(B). |
| Due process and minimum contacts | TIC knowingly recruited a Kansas resident (Filardo) and conspired to misappropriate trade secrets in Kansas. | Alleged contacts were unilateral or not purposefully directed at Kansas. | Jurisdiction satisfies minimum contacts through conspiratorial activities in Kansas. |
| Reasonableness and fair play | Kansas has strong interest; convenient forum; Aeroflex in Kansas. | Out-of-state witnesses; New Jersey forum favored. | Jurisdiction reasonable; does not offend fair play and substantial justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Merriman v. Crompton Corp., 282 Kan. 433, 146 P.3d 162 (2006) (Kan. 2006) (limits on defendants' contacts; prima facie standard when decided pretrial)
- In re Hesston Corp., 254 Kan. 941, 870 P.2d 17 (1994) (Kan. 1994) (prima facie standard when decision based on affidavits)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 80 L. Ed. 2d 404 (1984) (U.S. 1984) (distinguishes specific vs general jurisdiction; minimum contacts)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S. Ct. 559, 62 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1980) (U.S. 1980) (purposeful availment and forum state's interest)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S. Ct. 1492, 79 L. Ed. 2d 804 (1984) (U.S. 1984) (effects in forum as basis for jurisdiction when intentional tort)