XPX Armor & Equip., Inc. v. SkyLIFE Co., Inc.
2021 Ohio 2559
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- XPX Armor & Equipment (North Carolina) sued SkyLIFE (Ohio) in North Carolina Superior Court alleging breach of an oral "second" supply agreement for ~17,959 parachutes shipped from NC; Superior Court entered default judgment for XPX ($932,333.67).
- XPX filed the North Carolina judgment for enforcement in Lucas County, Ohio under Ohio's Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.
- SkyLIFE moved to vacate, arguing the NC court lacked personal jurisdiction and service was ineffective; the Ohio common pleas court agreed and held the NC judgment void.
- XPX appealed, raising eight assignments of error challenging the Ohio court's collateral attack, reliance on Civ.R. 60(B) briefing, personal jurisdiction analysis, service findings, and treatment of two agreements (a written 2017 contract with a forum-selection clause and an alleged separate 2018 oral contract).
- The Sixth District affirmed: it found NC's long‑arm statute satisfied but held NC lacked due‑process personal jurisdiction (no purposeful availment or general jurisdiction), so the NC judgment was not entitled to full faith and credit; other service-related issues were deemed moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (XPX) | Defendant's Argument (SkyLIFE) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral attack / scope of Ohio review of foreign judgment | Ohio court may not reverse issues decided by NC; Civ.R.60(B) applies only to voidable judgments | NC judgment is void for lack of personal jurisdiction/service and may be collaterally attacked in Ohio | Ohio court properly considered whether the NC judgment was void; collateral attack allowed for void judgments |
| NC long‑arm statutory jurisdiction | NC long‑arm satisfied because parachutes (goods) were shipped from NC under the second agreement | Disputes NC contacts were sufficient | NC long‑arm statute was satisfied on XPX's allegations |
| Specific jurisdiction (due process / purposeful availment) | Shipments and negotiations (three shipments in 2018) create sufficient minimum contacts | Mere purchase/receipt and unilateral acts by XPX do not constitute purposeful availment | No specific jurisdiction: XPX failed to show SkyLIFE purposefully availed itself of NC such that suit there was foreseeable |
| General jurisdiction | XPX argued continuous relationship justified broad jurisdiction | SkyLIFE is not "at home" in NC (Delaware incorporation; principal place Ohio; no offices or agents in NC) | No general jurisdiction: SkyLIFE was not essentially at home in NC |
| Effectiveness of service | Service on SkyLIFE's statutory agent in NC was proper under NC law | Service failed, rendering the default judgment void | Appellate court deemed service issue moot after finding lack of personal jurisdiction; NC judgment not entitled to full faith and credit |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes minimum‑contacts due process test for personal jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and evaluating contract contacts for specific jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (limits general jurisdiction to forums where a defendant is essentially "at home")
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (clarifies the relationship/relevance requirement for specific jurisdiction)
- Kauffman Racing Equip., L.L.C. v. Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81 (2010) (Ohio precedent stating personal‑jurisdiction standards and specific/jurisdiction framework)
- Patton v. Diemer, 35 Ohio St.3d 68 (1988) (trial court has inherent authority to vacate a void judgment)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (contacts must arise from the defendant's own actions; unilateral activity of plaintiff insufficient)