Getz v. TM Salinas, Inc.
412 S.W.3d 441
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Salinas is a Kansas corporation operating a McDonald’s in Roeland Park, KS near the Kansas–Missouri border; Getz is a Kansas resident who purchased a sandwich there.
- Getz drove into Jackson County, Missouri and ate the sandwich; he alleges it contained a bone and caused physical and emotional injuries.
- Getz sued Salinas in Jackson County, Missouri asserting negligence, res ipsa loquitur, breach of warranty, and strict products liability.
- The trial court dismissed Getz’s first petition for insufficient jurisdictional allegations; Getz filed a second petition adding jurisdictional facts (advertising, hiring, proximity, foreseeability).
- Salinas submitted an affidavit denying targeted Missouri advertising, solicitation of Missouri employees, ownership or business in Missouri; the court found the new allegations conclusory and dismissed the second petition without prejudice.
- Getz appealed; the court treated the second dismissal as appealable because Getz elected to stand on that petition and refused to plead further jurisdictional facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Missouri may exercise personal jurisdiction over Salinas (minimum contacts) | Getz: Salinas purposefully availed itself of Missouri by virtue of proximity, drive-thru customers crossing into Missouri, advertising generally in the KC area, and online hiring accessible to Missouri residents | Salinas: No purposeful availment — no Missouri business activities, no Missouri-targeted advertising, no solicitation of Missouri employees, and all operative events occurred in Kansas | Held: No. Allegations were conclusory or refuted by affidavit; contacts were random/fortuitous and insufficient for due process |
| Whether foreseeability of product entering Missouri suffices for jurisdiction | Getz: It was foreseeable given location and business type that products would be consumed in Missouri | Salinas: Foreseeability of eventual consumption in Missouri is unilateral and insufficient | Held: Foreseeability alone is insufficient (World‑Wide Volkswagen rule applies) |
| Appealability of dismissals without prejudice | Getz: Second dismissal is appealable because he stood on the petition | Salinas: First dismissal precluded refiling so affirm first; challenged appealability generally | Held: First dismissal not appealable (plaintiff sought to amend); second dismissal was appealable because plaintiff elected to stand on it |
| Whether plaintiff met burden to make prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts | Getz: Petition + affidavit establish contacts and forum convenience | Salinas: Affidavit disproves alleged contacts; plaintiff bears burden and failed | Held: Plaintiff failed to carry burden; trial court’s dismissal upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes minimum-contacts due process standard)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (foreseeability that a product may enter a forum is insufficient alone for jurisdiction)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (purposeful availment requirement)
- Bryant v. Smith Interior Design Group, Inc., 310 S.W.3d 227 (Mo. banc 2010) (Missouri two-step long-arm / minimum-contacts analysis)
- Myers v. Casino Queen, Inc., 689 F.3d 904 (8th Cir. 2012) (targeted advertising and shuttle services supported jurisdiction)
- Noble v. Shawnee Gun Shop, Inc., 316 S.W.3d 364 (Mo.App. 2010) (area-wide advertising and targeted marketing supported jurisdiction)
- Chromalloy Am. Corp. v. Elyria Foundry Co., 955 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. banc 1997) (consideration of affidavits and appealability principles)
- Jennings v. SSM Health Care St. Louis, 355 S.W.3d 526 (Mo.App. 2011) (when dismissal without prejudice is appealable)
- Mahoney v. Doerhoff Surgical Servs., Inc., 807 S.W.2d 503 (Mo. banc 1991) (standing on dismissed petition may render dismissal final)
- Peoples Bank v. Frazee, 318 S.W.3d 121 (Mo. banc 2010) (random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts insufficient)
- Pendergrass v. City of Springfield, 394 S.W.3d 444 (Mo.App. 2013) (dismissal without prejudice for jurisdictional defects is non-final when plaintiff can amend)