Hribar Transport LLC v. Slegers, 2:20-cv-01255

Background

Hribar Transport (Wisconsin LLC) sued former owner/employee Michael Slegers (Florida resident) for breaching a 2014 employment agreement with a two-year post‑employment non‑compete after Slegers resigned August 15, 2019.
Plaintiff alleges Slegers performed substantial work for Hribar in Wisconsin (supervisors in Caledonia; at least a dozen business trips with overnight stays 2017–2019; service orders, calls, emails with Wisconsin customers) and then solicited those customers for his new company and a competitor, causing >$1M in lost business.
Slegers removed the state action to federal court and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2); alternatively he sought transfer to the Northern District of Indiana under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a).
The court analyzed Wisconsin’s long‑arm statute and federal due process for specific jurisdiction, considering the nature and relation of Slegers’ Wisconsin contacts to the non‑compete dispute.
The court found jurisdiction under Wis. Stat. §801.05(5)(b) (suit arises out of services actually performed in Wisconsin) and concluded exercising jurisdiction comported with due process; it denied the alternative motion to transfer venue.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hribar)	Defendant's Argument (Slegers)	Held
Personal jurisdiction—long‑arm statute	§801.05(5)(b) applies because action arises from services Slegers performed in Wisconsin for Hribar (meetings, service orders, customer contacts).	Wisconsin statute subsections (including §801.05(4)(a) and §801.05(5)(a)) do not apply; no promise to perform services in Wisconsin and solicitation/service activities within Wisconsin do not accompany the out‑of‑state acts causing injury.	Court: Jurisdiction under §801.05(5)(b) satisfied; statute does not require that the alleged injury itself arose from Wisconsin‑performed services.
Personal jurisdiction—due process / minimum contacts	Slegers’ repeated trips, work for Wisconsin supervisors, customer contacts, and post‑employment solicitation create fair warning and suit‑related contacts.	Contacts were prior to the alleged breach and occurred while employed; post‑employment breach occurred outside Wisconsin; finding jurisdiction would expose every multi‑state employee to suit in multiple fora.	Court: Due process satisfied — contacts were suit‑related and created substantial connection to Wisconsin; dismissal denied.
Venue under §1391(b)	Eastern District of Wisconsin proper because substantial part of events occurred there (Hribar HQ, meetings, customers, supervisors).	Slegers lives outside Wisconsin; alleged solicitations occurred in Indiana/Michigan/Florida; choice‑of‑law is Indiana.	Court: Venue proper in Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Transfer under §1404(a)	(Implicit) Hribar’s home forum is appropriate; transferring is unnecessary.	Northern District of Indiana is more appropriate for convenience and likely familiarity with Indiana law.	Court: Denied transfer—only party familiarity with Indiana law favored transfer; other §1404 factors did not.

Key Cases Cited

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (established minimum contacts due process standard)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment/direction and fair warning analysis)
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (suit‑related conduct must create substantial connection to forum)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.C. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (general jurisdiction principles)
Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (specific jurisdiction requires affiliation between forum and underlying controversy)
Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi‑Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773 (contracting alone insufficient; assess totality of contacts)
RAR, Inc. v. Turner Diesel, 107 F.3d 1272 (cannot aggregate unrelated contacts to establish jurisdiction)
Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader‑Bridgeport Int'l, Inc., 626 F.3d 973 (§1404(a) transfer factors; flexible, case‑by‑case analysis)
Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (§1404(a) permits discretionary transfer balancing convenience and justice)
Felland v. Clifton, 682 F.3d 665 (Wisconsin long‑arm construed to reach full extent of due process)