Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. v. Bassett & Walker International, Inc.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26341
8th Cir.2012Background
- Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. (DFA) sued Bassett & Walker International, Inc. for breach of contract in Missouri federal court.
- Bassett, a Canadian company, had its principal place of business in Toronto and had no Missouri qualifications, agents, offices, property, or employees in Missouri.
- Between 2009 and 2011, Bassett purchased over 3.5 million pounds of DFA dairy products in about 80 transactions totaling $5 million, with contracts formed individually by phone.
- Diaz (Bassett) in Toronto and Butterfield (DFA) in Missouri representing DFA negotiated and approved transactions; Butterfield spent time in Missouri and DFA’s Missouri HQ approved each deal.
- Bassett obtained a $50,000 line of credit from DFA in 2009; requests for increases were processed in Missouri.
- In March 2011, Bassett used the line of credit to buy 220,000 pounds of non-fat dry milk, with an agreement stating shipment from Colorado to Mexico and payment to Illinois; DFA sued for nonpayment and the district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Missouri long-arm statute permits jurisdiction | DFA contends statute authorizes jurisdiction under transactional contacts in Missouri. | Bassett argues no Missouri transaction occurred and long-arm inquiry should be limited to due process. | Statutory and constitutional inquiries must be treated separately; Bassett did not transact business in Missouri. |
| Whether due process permits Missouri to assert jurisdiction over Bassett | DFA asserts Bassett had sufficient contacts (credit, forum-related communications, DFA HQ participation) to satisfy minimum contacts. | Bassett asserts contacts were insufficient and primarily occurred outside Missouri; no purposeful availment of Missouri. | Due process not satisfied; jurisdiction over Bassett in Missouri not permitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Viasystems, Inc. v. EBM-Pabst St. Georgen GmbH & Co., KG, 646 F.3d 589 (8th Cir. 2011) (tests de novo personal-jurisdiction review; limits on jurisdiction require sufficient facts)
- Wells Dairy, Inc. v. Food Movers Int’l, Inc., 607 F.3d 515 (8th Cir. 2010) (factors for specific jurisdiction; highlights role of forum-state credit relations)
- Scullin Steel Co. v. National Railway Utilization Corp., 676 F.2d 310 (8th Cir. 1982) (jurisdiction lacking where contact was only payment; unsolicited forum contacts insufficient)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (reasonableness of anticipated forum litigation and contract-focused minimum contacts)
- K-V Pharm. Co. v. J. Uriach & CIA, S.A., 648 F.3d 588 (8th Cir. 2011) (minimum contacts where contract contemplated forum-related shipment and payment)
- Atlas Scrap, Ltd. v. Atlas Scrap Mktg. Group, 558 F.2d 455 (8th Cir. 1977) (recognizes contacts and forum-directed activities as basis for jurisdiction)
- Aaron Ferer & Sons Co. v. Atlas Scrap Iron & Metal Co., 564 F.2d 1211 (8th Cir. 1977) (most sales activities occurring outside the forum can preclude jurisdiction when invoicing is the only forum activity)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (purposeful availment and foreseeability required for jurisdiction)
- St. Jude Med., Inc. v. Lifecare Int’l, Inc., 250 F.3d 587 (8th Cir. 2001) (contacts must relate to product and forum to sustain jurisdiction)