Albers Finishing & Solutions, LLC v. RK Inc., 6:18-cv-01225

Plaintiff Albers Finishing & Solutions, LLC (AFS) is a Kansas company; Defendant RK Inc. is a Missouri corporation that manufactured and sold two surface‑finishing systems (Zinc Line and Anodize Line) to AFS.
AFS issued purchase orders in 2016; advance and subsequent payments were made totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars; RK agreed to deliver and install systems in Kansas but missed deadlines and allegedly failed to complete/fully deliver components.
RK manufactured the equipment in Missouri, shipped it to AFS in Kansas, made multiple visits to AFS for delivery, installation, service, testing, and training, and installed the systems at AFS’s Kansas facility.
AFS sued in Sedgwick County, Kansas state court for breach of contract; RK removed to federal court and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue, or alternatively to transfer to Western District of Missouri.
The court considered venue under the removal statute and personal jurisdiction under K.S.A. 60‑308 and the Due Process Clause, viewing facts in plaintiff’s favor and considering affidavits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Venue proper in D. Kan after removal	Removal to federal court from Sedgwick County was proper under 28 U.S.C. §1441	Venue is improper under 28 U.S.C. §1391	Denied dismissal; removal venue governed by §1441, so venue in D. Kan is proper
Kansas long‑arm statute coverage	Contracts required performance in Kansas (delivery/install); K.S.A. 60‑308(b)(1)(E) applies	Contract alone insufficient for jurisdiction (citing due process precedent)	K.S.A. 60‑308(b)(1)(E) applies because contracts required performance in Kansas
Specific personal jurisdiction / Due Process	RK purposefully availed itself by delivering, installing, and repeatedly sending personnel to Kansas; claims arise from those contacts	RK says it did not solicit or conduct business in Kansas sufficient to establish jurisdiction	Minimum contacts established; specific jurisdiction exists because suit arises from RK’s purposeful activities in Kansas
Reasonableness / Fair play & substantial justice	Plaintiff needs relief in forum where harm occurred; Kansas has interest; convenience favors plaintiff	RK asserted the private/public interest factors favor Missouri but did not present a compelling case	Exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable; RK failed to show exercise would be unfair or unreasonable
Motion to transfer to W.D. Mo.	(alternative) transfer under §1406/§1631 if venue or jurisdiction defective	Same	Denied — venue and jurisdiction are proper in this court

Lundahl v. Public Storage Management, Inc., [citation="62 F. App'x 217"] (10th Cir.) (removal venue analysis)
Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, Inc., 345 U.S. 663 (1953) (governs removal/venue principles)
TH Agriculture & Nutrition, LLC v. Ace European Group, Ltd., 488 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir.) (long‑arm statute construed against but due‑process inquiry controls)
OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada, 149 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.) (forum long‑arm and due process discussion)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and minimum contacts framework)
World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1979) (minimum contacts requirement)
Monge v. RG Petro‑Machinery (Grp.) Co. Ltd., 701 F.3d 598 (10th Cir.) (specific jurisdiction and directing product into forum)
Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Continental Motors, Inc., 877 F.3d 895 (10th Cir.) (plaintiff’s prima facie burden; specific jurisdiction analysis)
Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc., 618 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir.) (purposeful availment and relatedness of claim)
Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir.) (reasonableness factors for jurisdiction)
Asahi Metal Ind. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (stream‑of‑commerce and purposeful direction concepts)
Trierweiler v. Croxton & Trench Holding Corp., 90 F.3d 1523 (10th Cir.) (continuing relationships from interstate contracts support jurisdiction)