6:16-cv-01345
D. Kan.Sep 1, 2016Background
- Haldrup USA (Indiana corp.) sued Kincaid Equipment (Kansas corp.) after Haldrup acquired rights from German assignor Inotec relating to a 2012 MOU and purchases of German-manufactured plot combines that were delivered to Kansas.
- Haldrup's amended complaint asserts three breach-of-contract counts (nonpayment and MOU breach) and seeks injunctive relief barring Kincaid from demoing/modifying Haldrup/Inotec implements.
- All original dealings were between Kincaid (Kansas) and Inotec (Germany); Kincaid ordered machines from Germany, received them in Kansas, and paid Inotec in Germany for at least one machine.
- Kincaid sold several Haldrup implements into Indiana (sales to Purdue, Dow, ABG) and demonstrated a modified C85 combine in Indiana to Tech Services, which reported performance problems.
- Kincaid moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, or alternatively to transfer to the District of Kansas; after discovery on jurisdiction the court considered the motion.
- The court found no specific personal jurisdiction in Indiana over Kincaid and, rather than dismiss, transferred the case to the District of Kansas under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana courts have specific personal jurisdiction over Kincaid | Haldrup contends Kincaid’s contacts (sales and demos in Indiana, especially to Purdue and Tech Services) support specific jurisdiction for the breach claims assigned from Inotec | Kincaid argues the agreements were negotiated and performed outside Indiana (Germany/Kansas), so contacts with Indiana are insufficient and unrelated to the contracts | Court: No personal jurisdiction; agreements and relevant dealings occurred with Inotec in Germany and Kincaid in Kansas, not Indiana |
| Whether Haldrup can base jurisdiction on Kincaid’s sales into Indiana (stream-of-commerce / relatedness) | Sales into Indiana (to Purdue, Dow, ABG) and related complaints show purposeful availment and connection to the disputes over payment/quality | Kincaid says those sales were unrelated, sporadic, and not part of a deliberate Indiana-directed distribution scheme | Court: Sales to Indiana (ABG, Dow) unrelated to the contract dispute do not support jurisdiction; Purdue sales were too attenuated and separate in time/context to create foreseeability |
| Whether injunctive relief allegations (Count IV) create jurisdictional ties | Haldrup asserts demos and modifications (e.g., the C85 demo in Indiana) support jurisdiction tied to the requested injunction | Kincaid asserts an injunction is a remedy, not an independent claim to expand jurisdiction; demo occurred before assignment and could not foresee suit by Haldrup | Court: Request for injunction does not bootstrap jurisdiction; the demo and remedy do not establish contacts sufficient for specific jurisdiction |
| Proper disposition when venue/jurisdiction is improper in forum | Haldrup does not dispute venue would be proper in Kansas; asks to keep suit in Indiana for convenience | Kincaid seeks dismissal or transfer to Kansas; argues Kansas is proper and connected to parties and machines | Court: In interest of justice, transfers case to U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and denies dismissal as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Felland v. Clifton, 682 F.3d 665 (7th Cir.) (prima facie standard for jurisdictional facts on motion to dismiss)
- Purdue Research Foundation v. Sanofi–Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773 (7th Cir.) (state long-arm and federal due process framework for jurisdiction)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S.) (general vs. specific jurisdiction and minimum contacts standard)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S.) (purposeful availment and considerations for contract-based jurisdiction)
- RAR, Inc. v. Turner Diesel, Ltd., 107 F.3d 1272 (7th Cir.) (cannot aggregate unrelated contacts to establish jurisdiction)
- Greving v. Northern Grain Marketing, LLC, 743 F.3d 487 (7th Cir.) (contacts must show real relationship to forum for purposeful availment)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (U.S.) (focus on defendant’s forum-directed conduct; plaintiff’s forum connections alone insufficient)
- Advanced Tactical Ordnance Systems, LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796 (7th Cir.) (sales into forum must relate to alleged wrongful activity to support specific jurisdiction)
- Citadel Group Ltd. v. Washington Regional Medical Center, 536 F.3d 757 (7th Cir.) (consider negotiation, terms, and performance locations in contract-jurisdiction analysis)