Harold David Walters v. Lima Elevator Company, Inc.
84 N.E.3d 1218
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Lima Elevator sued Michigan resident Harold David Walters in LaGrange Circuit Court for nonpayment on a purchase made April 30, 2010; complaint filed April 26, 2016.
- Walters moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the trial court granted the motion on June 20, 2016.
- Lima filed a timely motion to correct error arguing Walters’ jurisdictional challenge lacked affidavit or verified pleading support and thus failed to carry his burden to prove lack of jurisdiction.
- The trial court granted Lima’s motion to correct error on August 30, 2016, finding Walters had purposefully availed himself of Indiana by ordering seed from Lima and traveling to Indiana to pick it up.
- Record showed Walters made at least three orders with Lima and lived less than 20 miles from the Indiana courthouse; court concluded specific personal jurisdiction existed and case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had specific personal jurisdiction over Walters | Lima: Walters ordered seed from an Indiana company and picked it up in Indiana; those contacts support jurisdiction and he failed to prove lack of jurisdiction | Walters: The transaction (ordering and picking up seed) is not a substantial contact giving rise to jurisdiction for nonpayment claim | Court: Specific jurisdiction exists—Walters purposefully availed himself by ordering and retrieving goods in Indiana and could anticipate being sued there |
| Whether granting motion to correct error was proper | Lima: Trial court erred in dismissing without requiring Walters to support the jurisdictional challenge with affidavit/verified pleading | Walters: The initial dismissal was appropriate for lack of jurisdiction | Court: Granting motion to correct error was not an abuse of discretion because jurisdictional facts supported Indiana’s exercise of specific jurisdiction |
| Whether asserting jurisdiction offends due process (fair play & substantial justice) | Lima: Indiana has interest; plaintiff’s convenience and efficiency favor adjudication in Indiana | Walters: Burden and fairness weigh against being haled into Indiana | Court: Balancing Burger King factors favors jurisdiction (Walters lived nearby and previously entered Indiana to transact) |
| Whether a single or limited contact can establish jurisdiction | Lima: Single, related contact (pickup) is sufficient when suit relates to that contact | Walters: Limited contacts are insufficient | Court: A single substantial connection related to the suit can support specific jurisdiction; here contacts were sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- LinkAmerica Corp. v. Cox, 857 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. 2006) (standards for specific jurisdiction and purposeful availment)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment and fair play/substantial justice test)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (limits on asserting jurisdiction based on random or fortuitous contacts)
- McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220 (U.S. 1957) (single substantial contact can support specific jurisdiction)
- Attaway v. Omega, 903 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (specific jurisdiction upheld in nonpayment case where buyer transacted with Indiana seller and removed property)
- Boyer v. Smith, 42 N.E.3d 505 (Ind. 2015) (due process requirement that jurisdiction not offend fair play and substantial justice)
- Anthem Ins. Cos. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 730 N.E.2d 1227 (Ind. 2000) (burden allocation and presumption of jurisdiction in Indiana courts)