POHL, INC. OF AMERICA v. Webelhuth

ORME, BENCH, P.J., produc- Before DAVIS and Bret Miller its "available about JJ. require tion windows" and that it would verifying

"substantial lead-time between field delivery panels." OPINION dimensions None- theless, February Webelhuth DAVIS,Judge: faxed a letter to TAB and Bret Miller of (Pohl) Pohl, T1 of America Plaintiff Inc. informing panel system ISME TAB that the appeals grant of Defendants' the trial court's would need to be delivered no later than the personal juris- lack of motion to dismiss for February immediately end of 2008. ISME diction. We affirm. request responded mailed this to Pohl. Pohl letter, stating that has no con- "[ISME]

BACKGROUND tract, kind, Indeed, any with Pohl. Pohl contract, existing any company, has no with Pohl, corporation T2 a multinational with requires any provide product it to or Utah, designs its offices in and United States kind, any service on date." Webel- panels manufactures custom metal for build- huth then met with Bret Miller to discuss ings. Pohl entered into a contract with panel system, alternatives to the Pohl and (TAB), Company, T.A.B. Inc. a Missouri cor- ultimately suggest pan- decided to a different poration, under which Pohl was to manufac- system result, el to the owner. As a panel system University ture a for the new February Webelhuth hand-deliv- Performing Missouri at St. Louis Arts Cen- stating ered to TAB a letter that if the Pohl (the Project). TAB ter had a contract with panels by February were not received (KCI), Company, K.C.I. Inc. a Construction 2008, KCI would terminate TAB's contract. corporation general Missouri and the con- immediately TAB drafted similar letter to Project, tractor for the under TAB Pohl and faxed it to Pohl. the Pohl When agreed panel to furnish and install the Pohl systems panel February did not arrive on system. Defendant Ron Webelhuth acted as contract, KCI terminated TAB's TAB manager Project. project KCI's for the TAB then terminated its contract with Pohl. also had a contract with Defendant Industrial Erectors, (ISME), Sheet Metal Inc. a Mis- action, separate €4 In a Pohl sued TAB corporation, souri under which ISME was agreed for breach of contract but later responsible for the installation of the Pohl prejudice. dismiss the case without Pohl Miller, panel system. Defendant Bret who brought present then tort action initially Pohl, contacted worked as ISME's Third against District Court Defendants project manager, and Defendant Dennis Mil- Webelhuth, ISME, Miller, Bret and Dennis president ler is the of ISME. under complaint alleged Miller. The intentional in- KCI, TAB's responsi- contract with TAB was contract, terference with intentional interfer- ble for the construction and installation of a relations, prospective ence with economic system; panel Pohl under TAB's contract conspiracy. civil granted The trial court De- Pohl, responsible with Pohl was man- fendants' motion per- to dismiss for lack of panel system; ufacture of the and under jurisdiction. appeals. sonal Pohl now ISME, TAB's with ISME was re- contract sponsible pan- for the installation of the Pohl AND ISSUE STANDARD OF REVIEW system. el began manufacturing panel T3 Pohl T5 Pohl claims that the trial court system required TAB and dismissing against KCI. Pohl erred its claims Defen personal TAB, dants for lack of exclusively worked almost with but TAB directly did direct Pohl to communicate jurisdictional pretrial "Where a decision has with regarding Bret Miller of ISME Pro- documentary only, been made on an evidence ject's specifications scheduling appeal presents only legal deadlines. from that decision months, After several pres- questions KCI came under that are reviewed for correctness." Arguello Woodworking v. Industrial Mach. Project's sure from owner to deliver the TAB, ISME, Co., (Utah panel system. 1992); Pohl warned P.2d see indirectly with directly and Pohl Transp., to work Oil & v. Consolidated also Mecham 9, 53 Further, asserts that Defendants Pohl Utah. App business communica- "purposefully directed" though and that even tions to Pohl in Utah ANALYSIS remotely, transacted business that the trial court argues T6 they transacted business nonetheless be jurisdiction over Defendants had See, eg., MegaDiamond, Inc. Utah. SII long- within Utah's conductfell cause their Superabrasives Corp., 969 P.2d American process "federal due and because arm statute The "transaction of 434-35 by allowing Pohl a Utah is not offended is defined as "activities business" within Utah specific personal To establish forum." repre- person, agents, his of a nonresident Defendants, Pohl must demon over 1 persons which affect sentatives this state "(1) long-arm statute strate the state of Utah." Utah or businesses within (2) contacts, acts or to [Defendants'] extends (2002). addition, In $ Code Ann. 78-27-23 acts or out of those claim arises " [Pohl's] out, long correctly points as '[slo as Pohl (8) contacts, jurisdiction the exercise of "purposefully are commercial actor's efforts process right to due [Defendants'] satisfies State, of another directed" toward residents Constitution." the United States under rejected consistently the notion have [courts] ¶ 8, Enters., Inc., 2006 UT v. Mleads Fenn physical contacts can de- that an absence of 706; Directories Co. see also Phone 137 P.3d jurisdiction there"" SII Me- personal feat ¶ 12, Henderson, 8 P.3d 256. 2000 UT Burger (quoting at gaDiamond, 969 P.2d Rudzewicz, King Corp. v. U.S. Long-Arm I. The Utah Statute (1985)). 2174,85 L.Ed.2d 528 105 S.Ct. had the trial court Pohl claims that T7 argue they that did %T9Defendants Defen- jurisdiction over Defendants because because, in Utah under not transact business enumerat- was within the acts dants' conduct definition, activi statutory at least some the The statute in statute. ed Utah's agree. occur within Utah. We ties must provides: 78-27-23(2) plainly states section Utah Code ... or not a citizen Any person whether "(tlhe 'transaction of business words state, person in or of this who or resident activities of a nonresi state' mean within this following any the through agent an does affect person ... in this state which dent acts, ... to submits himself enumerated state of within the persons or businesses jurisdiction of the courts of this state the 78-27-23(2) (em § Ann. Utah." Utah Code to: arising out of or related any to claim as added). have not phasis Because (1) any business within the transaction Utah, business within physically conducted state; this [or] that Defendants must demonstrate Pohl by purposefully in Utah business transacted (8) any injury within this causing of the wire communications directing mail or or breach of whether tortious state MegaDiamond, Utah. See SII in warranty[.] P.2d at 434-35. (2002). § Fur- Ann. 78-27-24 Utah Code stated in its memoran- 4 10 The trial court ther, is limited jurisdiction over nonresidents only communication decision that dum arising from acts to those claims enumerated received supported Pohl's tort Pohl that § judicial code. id. 78-27-26 in the letter, See February claims was TAB's (2002). | system by . delivery panel demanded that as trial noted February 19. The Respecting transaction T8 court Defendants' however, Defendants, only "the actions for in Pohl claims that business Defen- the basis form conduct them obligations required them contractual dants' appeal. general personal on did not address Although court ruled that it 1. the trial specific per exclusively personal general over Defen We therefore focus jurisdiction. generally sonal Inc., 2001 Enters., Ho v. Jim's dants, see 63, ¶¶ 7-8, parties do not UT performed exclusively claims were claims do not out of ... "arise[ ] those acts [Pokhl's] persons the state of Missouri-with or enti- or contacts" with Utah. Fenn v. Mleads En In ties located the state of Missouri." ters., Inc., 137 P.3d706. words, other. the trial court concluded that Moreover, only communications between communication relevant to Pohl's Pohl and Defendants were made further against claims Defendants was the letter ance of Pohl's contract with TAB and did not to TAB in Webelhuth hand-delivered St. alleged involve the tortious conduct. Pohl's Louis, Missouri, which Defendants did not certainly tort claims do not arise out of the Moreover, send to Pohl. in a themselves communications between Pohl and Defen ISME, letter from Pohl Pohl's counsel regarding specifications dants of the Pro contract, stated that ISME no "hald] result, ject. As a the trial court kind, patently Pohl.2 facts with These dismissed Pohl's for lack claims MegaDic- different than the facts SII § See Utah Code 78-27- Ann. mond, Supreme where the Utah Court ruled purposefully that the defendant had directed its efforts toward Utah because it residents II. Fourteenth Amendment Due Process agreement entered into a distribution with a Although Defendants' activities company Utah and "submitted continuous or statute, are outside the reach of our product ders for a manufactured in Utah." jurisdic process precludes federal due also Defendants did not transact busi process, tion here. Under federal due we they purposefully ness in nor did direct business communications to Pohl in Utah. personal jurisdiction against "cannot exercise a defendant unless there exist 'minimum con ¶ 11 Next, argues that the Utah [the tacts with forum such that the state] long-arm statute is satisfied because Pohl's maintenance of the suit does not offend tradi acts, claims out arise of Defendants' tortious play tional of notions fair and substantial injured Pohl in Utah. See Utah Code justice"" Graing MFS Series Trust III v. 78-27-24(3) § (stating Ann. that Utah has er, (alteration 61, ¶ 10, 2004 UT 96 P.3d 927 jurisdiction any arising over claim out "the of original) (quoting in International Shoe Co. causing any injury of within this state wheth Washington, U.S. S.Ct. by warranty"). er Spe tortious breach of (1945)). 90 L.Ed. 95 cifically, Pohl that claims Defendants deliber ately interfered with its contract with TAB. T14 Courts laid out have several factors However, "éausing injury the financial [of] determining for whether a defendant has suf- flatly rejected a Utah business 'has been First, ficient minimum contacts with Utah. exercising the Utah courts as a basis for purposefully "defendant must avail[ed] have jurisdiction." specific personal Sys., Patriot privilege conducting itself of the activities Corp., Inc. 21 F.Supp.2d v. C-Cubed state, within invoking the forum thus Harnischfeger (D.Utah 1998) (mem.) (quoting protections benefits and of its laws." Id. Eng 'rs, Conveyor, Inc. v. (alteration Uniflo original) (quotations in and cita- (D.Utah F.Supp. omitted). Second, tion Utah courts have Therefore, alleges only because Pohl that "personal jurisdiction only where the con- Defendants' business torts caused it financial proximately tacts result from actions injury, long-arm the Utah statute is not satis defendant himself that create a substantial fied. (quota- with the forum state." Id. connection any 112 BecausePohl hasnot shownthat omitted). Third, tions and citation "[wle ex- long- of Defendants' acts fell within specific personal jurisdiction only ercise statute, arm either arising tortious conduct or claims out of defendant's forum- [the] business, activity, transaction it follows that Pohl's state and the contact between the We are aware that there were direct communi- and related to Pohl's contract with TAB. cations between Pohl and Bret.Miller of ISME the direct communications between Pohl and regarding specifications delivery and sched- satisfy Defendants do not statute as panels Project. ule of the for the These commu- against Defendants. nications, however, request were made at Pohl's reasonable," fair and jurisdiction must be such must be forum state and the defendant no "the traditional it will violate reasonably antici- otherwise should the defendant that justice." (quo- play and substantial Id. of fair into court there." tions being haled pate omitted). Fourth, Fenn, (quo "the 137 P.3d706 8 at ¶ and citation tations omitted). justify can Defendants Utah citation of whether tations and determination Louis, hinges over defendants from St. asserting jurisdiction and a business are individuals parties to the balancing of fairness pro on the Missouri, a construction worked on who assuming in of the State the interests and activities All of Defendants' ject in Missouri. citation (quotations and Id. jurisdiction." and their records in Missouri occurred omitted). Pohl, on in Missouri. are located witnesses hand, corporation multinational is a the other court the trial conclude that 15 We the world. We all over that does business ... "Defendants determined that, facts and cireum- under conclude required to satis contacts' the 'minimum lack case, jurisdiction asserting this stances of specific process requirements fy due "fair and rea would not be over Defendants First, jurisdiction." personal Defendants such, the trial court cor As sonable." Id. themselves "purposefully avail{ed]" not jurisdiction asserting over rectly ruled conducting business of the benefits pro federal due would violate Defendants omitted). citation (quotations and Id. Utah. cess. any signifi engaged Defendants Utah, nor have within activities cant business CONCLUSION obligations any continuous they created Second, have not actions Defendants' Utah. of Pohl's court's dismissal 117 The trial Utah. connection" with a "substantial created lack of complaint fact, almost worked In exclu ful- actions did not Defendants' proper. was Missouri, Louis, it TAB in sively with St. event, statute, fill Utah's Pohl. The contracted with TAB that was over Defendants assertion Miller of between Bret communications there- process. We federal due wouldviolate of were at the direction and Pohl ISME Defen- grant of the trial court's fore affirm of Pohl's TAB, in furtherance were made and lack of to dismiss for motion dants' Also, that TAB. Pohl admitted with contract Third, Defen contract with ISME. it has no to cause insufficient BENCH, contacts were dants' I RUSSELL W. T18 CONCUR: anticipate being haled "reasonably them Presiding Judge. cita (quotations and in into court" Utah. ORME, (concurring part in Judge omitted). Moreover, although Defen tion part): in dissenting actions known that their may have dants very impact- in that in Part affect Pohl I concur exception,1 would With one 19 injury alleged by Pobhl-has i.e., the financial I must dissent opinion, but I the main un inadequate for proper deemed not to reach simply been It is Part II. from statute, Patriot see in this case because der issue the constitutional Finally, the F.Supp2d at 1321. Sys., 21 statute that our we concluded fairness to Defendants between balance Plaintiffs over not confer does providing in interest of Utah's the State claims. Defendants. weighs in favor of a forum {20 if a case jurisprudence, our Under mini Thus, do not have sufficient statutory grounds, we may be resolved in mum contacts Utah. to ren- temptation the obliged to resist advisory opinions about con- unnecessary mini der the need for %16 In addition to issues, they us. if interest even Defendants, "the exercise stitutional mum contacts and, ISME acknowledged contract with it had no significance aof "[mJoreover" I fail to see only suing recognizes, in stating majority is ISME that ISME Pohl's counsel as the letter from contract, kind, Opinion, with Pohl." Main 3-4. no See Main MM "hald] tort. all, consistently Opinion, Pohl has 110. After 1278

See, 3, e.g., Cosby, In re Estate 2003 UT resident defendant is determined two ¶ 11, (stating 65 P.3d 1184 that due to the factors: the breadth of the forum state's disposition pre- of two court's other issues jurisdictional process statute and the due parties, involving a sented one rule of jurisdiction imposed by limitations on evidence, necessary "it to reach [was]. Fourteenth Amendment to the United appellant's] challenges"); constitutional [the States Constitution. the relevant state If (Utah Monson, 240, Hoyle v. 606 P.2d 242 jurisdiction, permit statute does not then 1980) ("[Clourts busy do not themselves with ended; does, inquiry is if it then the advisory opinions, they] [do nor exercise the question is whether the statute's reach power pronouncing delicate a statute un- comports process. with due abstract, hypothetical, constitutional Arguello Woodworking v. Industrial Mach. otherwise moot cases.... [A] constitutional Co., (cita 1120, (Utah 1992) 838 P.2d 1122 question is not to be reached if the merits of omitted) added). (emphasis tions Accord may fairly ... the case be determined on Parry Corp., v. Ernst Home Ctr. 779 P.2d issues."); other than Estes v. constitutional (Utah 659, 1989); Nagle, Bradford 1979) Talbot, ("It 1324, 597 P.2d (Utah 1988). 791, We have demon necessary important is not ... to reach the opinion strated Part I of main that the questions just constitutional which or applicable permit jurisdic statute does not subject whether all State officers are to im ended," tion. "inquiry Arguello, our is peachment.... fact The is that under no 838 P.2d at 1122-or should be. reasonable construction of the statutes question maintained."); could this action be 1 22 It is true that a number of Utah cases Giles, 368, Heathman v. 13 Utah 2d have discussed implications the Due Process (1962) ("In regard to the issue of long-arm jurisdiction the exercise of after held, constitutionality: generally it is and we statute, dealing apparently with the and it is so, think having that after deter- pattern explains my this familiar col- apply mined that a statute does not to the leagues' gratuitous foray into constitutional hand, case in go beyond the court will not However, law in this case. unlike in this (footnote constitutionality.") consider its case, every one of those other cases the omitted); Irrigation Whitcher v. Bonneville appellate court reached the Due Process is- Dist., (1927) 69 Utah 256 P. sue after it concluded or assumed first (discussing necessary that "it [was] not jurisdic- the statute itself would confer consider or questions determine the ... re- See, e.g., tion. Fenn v. Mleads Enters. specting constitutionality provi of the ("Both parties 137 P.3d706 sions" because "the assessments made and agree long-arm that the Utah statute extends taxes levied ... [were] void and of no effect" to [the actions in defendant]'s this case and reason); Smilowitz, for a different Holm v. [pJlaintiff's that the claim arises out of those (Utah 840 P.2d 169-70 Ct.App.1992) Hence, acts or granted contacts. we certio- (concurring opinion joined by majority of rari process analysis to review the due panel) (invoking proscription the institutional of the appeals[.]"); Starways, court of Inc. v. against reaching constitutional issues unnee- 50, ¶¶ 7-8, Curry, 1999 UT 980 P.2d 204 essarily noting "the because com- ("[ (8) conclude that subparagraph of the Wle missioner's actions were not even authorized encompasses statute the defen rule," by statute or there was "no need to alleged by dants' acts as the uncontroverted opine implications about constitutional of portions plaintiff's] complaint. of [the We actions"). such next holding consider whether the defen exception policy No to this sound has subject jurisdiction dants to this state's ac recognized been in long-arm selective use process."); Arguello, cords with due 838 P.2d contrary, cases. On general rule (1) (3) has (assuming at 1122 "subparagraph been consistently embraced and followed statute will be satisfied" before appellate courts of this state: moving implications to consider Due Process

Generally, jurisdiction whether a state can pursuant exercise exercise of to those specific personal contrast, statutory provisions). over a non- In ap- if the statu- straightforward decided peal can be Process Due the theoretical

tory grounds, of the exercise

implications Dahnken, v. See, Inc. e.g., broached.2 (Utah 596, 597-98

Marshinsky, Inc., 549 Murray, 1978); Arthur v. White denied, (Utah), cert. 440-41 P.2d (1976); L.Ed.2d 97 S.Ct. U.S. Rentals, Motor Corp. v. Nevada Fin.

Mack 430-31 long-arm stat- agree I

123 While case, I jurisdiction in this not confer

ute does unnecessary wholly adviso- join in the

do not law, given that opinion on constitutional

ry on statuto- be resolved can

this case

ry grounds. App239

2007UT the interest

STATE W.H.V., person under age.

eighteen years of Appellee, Utah, Plaintiff

State of Appellant.

W.H.V., Defendant 20050942-CA.

No. Appeals of Utah.

Court

July 6,2007. analysis was confined Supreme Court's relevant opinion single appellate Utah a I can find showing of is no single ''There analysis sentence: statutory and constitutional both where where, in this State contacts' 'significant minimal as in in a case the court are treated of the feder- satisfy process clause the due would confer held not statute was case, our Co., with- of business 'transaction constitution nor al Prods. Kocha v. Gibson See 78-27-23, paragraph Section six defined In this state' as in this omitted). Tuckett, (footnotes at 681 opinion Justice T.C.A.1953." authored

Case Details

Case Name: POHL, INC. OF AMERICA v. Webelhuth

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Utah

Date Published: Jun 28, 2007

Citation: 164 P.3d 1272

Docket Number: 20060409-CA

Court Abbreviation: Utah Ct. App.