Grizzly Security Armored Express, Inc. v. Armored Group, LLC
2011 MT 128
Mont.2011Background
- TAG, a nonresident defendant, sells armored vehicles and maintains a Montana service footprint; Grizzly, a Montana security firm, purchased several TAG trucks for use in Montana.
- Grizzly alleged TAG sold vehicles with defects and disputed resulting repair duties; litigation arose in Montana and TAG was served in Arizona.
- A default judgment was entered against TAG after its failure to answer; this Court subsequently reversed that default judgment in a prior Montana decision.
- On remand, TAG moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the district court initially granted dismissal, and Grizzly appealed.
- Grizzly submitted evidence from the original default hearing and affidavits from Montana businesses; TAG waived a live hearing and offered affidavits.
- The issue on appeal centers on Montana long-arm jurisdiction under M.R. Civ. P. 4B(1)(a) and due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of vacated default hearing testimony on appeal | Grizzly argues the transcript is admissible evidence on appeal. | TAG contends the testimony cannot be used to establish jurisdiction. | Transcript and affidavits may be used to determine jurisdiction. |
| Whether Montana long-arm jurisdiction over TAG exists | TAG engaged in substantial Montana-related activities with Grizzly and other Montana businesses. | TAG contends contacts were insufficient to constitute transacting business in Montana. | Montana long-arm jurisdiction under 4B(1)(a) is proven; TAG transacted substantial business in Montana. |
| Due process under federal law | TAG purposefully availed itself of Montana by ongoing Montana activity and servicing Montana vehicles. | TAG asserts the conduct was contractual and out-of-state in performance. | Exercise of jurisdiction is constitutional; TAG reasonably could anticipate defending in Montana. |
Key Cases Cited
- Knoepke v. S.W. Ry., 190 Mont. 238 (1980) (affidavits may support jurisdiction if parties can refute them via deposition)
- Nelson v. San Joaquin Helicopters, 228 Mont. 267 (1987) (multiple Montana contracts can establish long-arm jurisdiction despite out-of-state negotiations)
- Tryco Mfg. Co. v., 554 F. Supp. 1025 (D. Mont. 1983) (advertising and sale activities constituting substantial Montana business)
- Bunch v. Lancair Intl., Inc., 2009 MT 29 (2009) (presence of aircraft in Montana alone not enough; facts showed substantial activity)
- Edsall Constr. Co. v. Robinson, 246 Mont. 378 (1991) (solicitation of bids from Montana for out-of-state performance insufficient for transacting in-state)
- Cimmaron Corp. v. Smith, 2003 MT 73 (2003) (communications about out-of-state contract performance not transacting in Montana)
- B.T. Metal Works v. United Die & Mfg. Co., 2004 MT 286 (2004) (test for long-arm jurisdiction: purposeful availing and reasonableness)
- Simmons v. State, 206 Mont. 264 (1983) (due process analyze forum connections via Ninth Circuit framework)