Monge v. RG Petro-Machinery (Group) Co.
701 F.3d 598
10th Cir.2012Background
- Rig 43 manufactured by RG Petro in China; exported to the U.S. and consigned to EWS in Kansas; Rig 43 shipped to Kansas and later moved to Oklahoma where Monge was injured.
- Monge, an EWS employee covered by workers’ compensation, sued EWS under Oklahoma’s intentional tort exception to the Workers’ Compensation Act and RG Petro under products liability.
- RG Petro moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; EWS moved for summary judgment arguing no substantial certainty evidence.
- District court granted summary judgment for EWS and denied Monge’s Rule 59(e) motion; district court later concluded RG Petro lacked personal jurisdiction over Oklahoma.
- On appeal, Monge contends (a) Parret/substantial certainty test was misapplied, (b) Rule 59(e) motion was wrongly denied, (c) RG Petro lacked personal jurisdiction; Richard Energy settled and is not involved on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EWS’s lack of substantial certainty supports summary judgment | Monge argues EWS knew injury was substantially certain | EWS argues no substantial certainty | Yes for EWS? (affirmed in full) |
| Whether the Rule 59(e) denial was abuse of discretion | Monge relied on Ediger deposition as newly discovered evidence | District court properly denied as not newly discovered | No abuse; ruling affirmed |
| Whether the district court had personal jurisdiction over RG Petro | RG Petro could foresee Oklahoma injury and targeted forum | No purposeful directing of activities; injury arising from unilateral acts | No specific or general jurisdiction over RG Petro |
Key Cases Cited
- Parret v. UNICCO Serv. Co., 127 P.3d 572 (Okla. 2005) (establishes substantial certainty test for intentional tort exception)
- Price v. Howard, 236 P.3d 82 (Okla. 2010) (substantial certainty standard is difficult to meet; not mere foreseeability)
- Jordan v. W. Farmers Elec. Co-op., 2012 OK 94, 290 P.3d | (Okla. 2012) (reaffirms substantial certainty / Parret framework; timing of statutes like §302 changes the rule)
- E.E.O.C. v. C.R. England, 644 F.3d 1028 (10th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard and deference to movant’s showing)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (foreseeability alone not enough for jurisdiction; need minimum contacts)
- Intercon, Inc. v. Bell Atl. Internet Solutions, Inc., 205 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2000) (minimum contacts analysis for Oklahoma long-arm and due process)