Sullivan v. HAWKER BEECHCRAFT CORP.
723 S.E.2d 835
S.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- Sullivan, an Ohio resident, was injured in a 2005 Beechcraft V35 crash in South Carolina.
- The airplane involved was maintained and serviced in Ohio, Florida, and Arkansas; original purchaser was an Ohio resident.
- Sullivan filed suit in Ohio in 2006, then filed in South Carolina in 2008 after learning the crash-related claims.
- Amended complaint (2009) named Pacific for the first time and asserted long-arm jurisdiction under SC Code § 36-2-803(A)(4).
- Defendants ABI, Mena, and Pacific moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; affidavits claimed no SC presence or substantial SC activity.
- Trial court granted the motions to dismiss; Sullivan sought to amend again but the court dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended complaint supports personal jurisdiction under the long-arm statute | Sullivan: long-arm statute authorizes jurisdiction over torts with substantial SC connections. | Respondents: no regular business, no persistent conduct, no SC-revenue attributable to them. | No prima facie basis; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether Sullivan met due process requirements for PJ | Sullivan contends defendants regularly did business in SC and caused injuries there. | Respondents lacked SC presence or purposeful availment. | Not satisfied; due process not met. |
| Whether Sullivan was entitled to jurisdictional discovery | Discovery could uncover SC-related contacts establishing jurisdiction. | Discovery unnecessary; allegations were speculative and unsupported by facts. | Discretion affirmed; discovery denied. |
| Whether the second amended complaint could be dismissed with prejudice | Modification of dismissal could be without prejudice to allow amendments. | Trial court properly denied amendment; prejudice to defendants absent. | Dismissal with prejudice affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aviation Assocs. & Consultants, Inc. v. Jet Time, Inc., 303 S.C. 502, 402 S.E.2d 177 (1991) (two-step PJ analysis; long-arm statutes and due process)
- Power Prods. & Servs. Co. v. Kozma, 379 S.C. 423, 665 S.E.2d 660 (Ct.App.2008) (burden on plaintiff to prove jurisdiction via prima facie showing)
- Moosally v. W.W. Norton & Co., 358 S.C. 320, 594 S.E.2d 878 (Ct.App.2004) (pretrial prima facie standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Coggeshall v. Reprod. Endocrine Assocs., 376 S.C. 12, 655 S.E.2d 476 (2007) (may use affidavits to determine PJ; not bound to pleadings alone)
- Cockrell v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 363 S.C. 485, 611 S.E.2d 505 (2005) (trial court’s PJ ruling reviewed for evidentiary support)
- Rich v. KIS Cal., Inc., 121 F.R.D. 254 (M.D.N.C.1988) (discretion to deny jurisdictional discovery when evidence is speculative)
- Spence v. Spence, 368 S.C. 106, 628 S.E.2d 869 (2006) (discretion to deny amendment where no new factual allegations.)
- S. Plastics Co. v. S. Commerce Bank, 310 S.C. 256, 423 S.E.2d 128 (1992) (pleadings; prima facie showing; standard of proof)
- Tuttle Dozer Works Inc. v. Gyro-Trac (USA), Inc., 463 F. Supp. 2d 544 (D.N.C.2006) (federal analogs guiding jurisdictional discovery discretion)