*1 and that his against his brother charges pros- family member protect

need to effectively plea. his See coerced

ecution Cammisano, F.2d 851 States

United

(8th Cir.1979). was No coercion overt notes, case. the state

present in this As terms, including recommenda- plea’s to Weis- probation, were favorable

tion for establish that record

berg. The does involuntary. plea

his

DECISION intel- Weisberg’s limited

The evidence vacating functioning require

lectual corresponding convic- plea and guilty

his However, Weisberg was not because

tion. offense, guilty gambling of another

found probation. revocation of his

we reverse the part. part reversed

Affirmed in CORPORATION,

BELLBOY SEAFOOD

Respondent, CORP.,

KENT TRADING d/b/a Defendant, Sales, Al Kent

Quality Fish, Appellant.

No. C5-91-300. Appeals Minnesota.

Aug. 13, 1991. Sept. Granted

Review *2 products. Appellant

fish other seafood Quality (Quality) Fish is a New York products. wholesaler/distributor fish North American Shellfish is a seafood com- also pany located in New York. Florida- Trading based Kent is a broker that ar- purchases ranges of seafood for its clients. Bellboy alleged complaint in its Trading negotiated transaction Quality Quality agreed behalf in which $12,833.10 purchase orange to worth affidavit, roughy Bellboy. fish from In her Gray, Bellboy manager, Sandra credit alleged Bellboy agreed ship that before to credit, Bellboy requested the fish on credit Quality. response information from to request, Quality provided one bank ref- Gray erence and five trade references. Marinello, personally asked Quality’s Mono president, to direct his to release cred- bank Bellboy. it Marinello information, agreed. Bellboy Based on the shipped extended credit and the fish. On 8, 1990, the May day same credit extended, Bellboy sent a written confirma- tion the order to The confirma- tion, Quality addressed to at its Port Wash- office, ington, New directed that the goods be American North Ware- Avenue, Bayshore, house at 3 Railroad Island, Long New York. notify ship Bellboy that it should not Bell, Prairie, respon- Steven M. Eden straight lading accompa- fish. The bill

dent. nying shipment refers to Trevis, Rollins, Carolyn Krause & J. on the confirmation and states that number Chartered, Minneapolis, appellant. the destination for the was as fol- lows: RANDALL, Considered decided Quality Fish P.J., SCHUMACHER, and HUSPENI and c/o No American Shellfish JJ. 3 Railroad Avenue LI, Bayshore, NY OPINION PO 25564 SCHUMACHER, Judge. The fish were delivered the North Amer- Appellant challenges the trial court’s ex- Bellboy Shellfish ican address. maintains ercise and its denial and North American Shellfish appellant’s findings motion amend however, refuses to affiliated. We affirm fact. and remand. fish, payment make for the denies that Trading purchase authorized Kent fish FACTS any legal and denies relation- Respondent Corporation Quali- ship Seafood with North American Shellfish. (Bellboy) supplier ty is a Minnesota-based does not maintain an office in Minnesota 1(b) (1990). inter 543.19, When subd. products its § not distribute and does provi “transacting business” preting state. held have sion, appellate courts Trading were and Kent Both is intended to long-arm statute “our Long pursuant to process served nonres jurisdiction over personam assert 543.19 Minn.Stat. Arm Statute. § consistent extent to the maximum idents answered, Kent nor neither When *3 Marquette, 270 process.” due judgment a default Bellboy obtained requires suffi process Due at 294. N.W.2d 3, 1990. Trading on October against Kent the forum contacts with cient minimum date, Quality filed an answer the same On suit does of the that the maintenance “such complaint for the a motion to dismiss and play of fair ‘traditional notions not offend and to amend of lack ” International justice.’ and substantial Quality findings fact to reflect of the 310, 316, Washington, U.S. Co. v. Shoe against judgment for the not liable (1945) 154, 158, (quot 90 L.Ed. 95 66 S.Ct. denied both Trading. The trial court Kent 457, 463, 61 311 U.S. ing Meyer, v. Milliken motions. (1940)). 339, 343, Fur 85 L.Ed. 278 S.Ct. ther, done some must have the defendant ISSUES itself “purposefully avails by act which personal jur- have Did the trial court 1. conducting activities privilege of Fish? appellant Quality

isdiction state, invoking the forum thus within the refusing by court err Did the trial protection of its laws.” Dent- and benefits fact, findings conclusions the amend Serv., 332 Air, Air Inc. v. Beech Mountain Quality Fish was state that law to 904, (Minn.1983)(quoting Han N.W.2d against judgment any part for liable 253, 235, Denckla, 78 S.Ct. 357 U.S. v. son Trading? 1239, (1958)). Finally, 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d anticipate “reasonably

a nonresident must being into the state’s court.” Id. haled ANALYSIS Corp. v. (citing Volkswagen World-Wide I. 559, Woodson, 444 100 S.Ct. U.S. jurisdic personal (1980)). order to assert 567, L.Ed.2d 490 In defendant, the non-resident tion over a Hardrives, 307 Minn. at Long the Arm must show that plaintiff Supreme at the N.W.2d mini that sufficient applies and Statute adopted the test Aftanase forum and the between the mum contacts (8th Co., 343 F.2d 187 Economy Baler satisfy mini present so as to defendant are Cir.1965), evaluating the fun whether requirements. Mar process due mum requirements for exercis damental fairness Norris, 270 quette Nat’l Bank been met. ing personal jurisdiction have (Minn.1978). 290, 294 should consider The factors that the court challenges per Once a defendant are: plaintiff the the bears jurisdiction, sonal contacts; (1) the quantity the prima a facie case of presenting burden (2) quality of the con- the nature and minimum contacts between constitutional tacts; Hardrives, and the defendant. the forum (3) relationship or be- the connection LaCrosse, 307 Minn. City Inc. v. cause of action and the con- tween the the At tacts; as true stage, the court is to take pretrial fo- (4) providing interest in the state’s plaintiff’s allegations contained rum; and any supporting evidence sub complaint and parties. the convenience of the mitted. Id. secondary Here, The last two factors jurisdiction under invokes Dent-Air, 332 N.W.2d at considerations. “transacting business” subdivision Long Minn.Stat. 907. Arm Statute. See Appellant argues provided state Indeed, address straight lading sufficient contacts lacked bill shows that the dis exercise of We “Quality were Fish c/o No agree. The trial court identified the follow Shellfish.” Although Bellboy American as ing supporting contacts with Minnesota sent confirmation personal jurisdiction: its exercise of Washington, its home office in Port at New York, [Quality] solicited business from [Bell- never notified Minnesota,1 boy] [Quality] released its erroneously placed the order was or was [Bellboy] in financial responsibility Quality. not the Only af- Minnesota, [Quality] contracted un- and ter the were delivered to fish the ware- Minnesota. der the laws of Bellboy sought house in New payment object correctly recognized The trial court deny responsibility order. quantity of contacts between Minneso- apparent noted, fraudulent inducement of great ta are not but *4 transaction, Marquette, on under the rule in is relying Marquette, that even one isolat- to may support ed be 270 sufficient the contact sufficient. Id. trial court’s find- ing quantity personal jurisdiction. N.W.2d at 296. Where the large, with the forum is not the contacts Similarly, in Flaby, Vikse v. quality and nature the contacts become (Minn.1982), Kop 282-83 and dispositive. Id. perud Agers, v. 312 N.W.2d 445-46 Marquette, supreme the noted: court (Minn.1981), Supreme the Minnesota court, consistent with the rule of found sufficient forum contacts where the * * * Denckla, v. con- Hanson has participated defendants in a scheme to de having a purposeful- sidered defendant’s fraud Minnesota in analysis investors. The ly solicited contacts a Minnesota with Kopperud particularly apt is in this case: having resident or initiated or induced This is not a case of an un- isolated or the transaction out of the which cause foreseeable contact with Minnesota. justifying a action arises as crucial factor purposefully himself availed [Defendant] assumption jurisdiction. of personal the carry of this state a to to out scheme Id. The court determined the “active Although defraud investors. his direct inducement of a to en- Minnesota resident limited, contacts with this state he were ter a transaction to its suf- detriment” was setting was in in the instrumental motion “justify subjecting ficient to defen- [the keeping go- fraudulent scheme and in it to the dant] ing. directly The cause of action arises of this the ‘purposeful courts state under out of the fraudulent transactions. privileges’ availment test Hanson v. We, accordingly, Id. hold a that where Denckla.” Id. at 297. fraudulently a defendant enters contract Here, taking allegations con the resident, awith Minnesota the constitution- true, pleadings in Bellboy’s tained as we met, requirements al minimum contact Quality’s conclude that conduct satisfied supporting thus the trial court’s exercise purposeful the Appellant’s availment test. personal jurisdiction. agent, Trading, negotiated Kent a contract Undoubtedly, Minnesota has a substan- and in Bell between which protecting in from tial interest its citizens boy agreed to deliver fish Be nonresidents that enter contracts fraudu- Bellboy agreed ship fore the fish on lently. credit, requested credit from references Wells, Quality. Quality’s president We find Leoni v. 264 N.W.2d directed its (Minn.1978), Transp. bank to release credit Bell Marshall Co. information, Co., boy. Based on the Bender-Goodman 275 Minn. Paper extended credit and the fish the N.W.2d 161 and S.B. Schmidt fish, applied agency analysis potentially Trading 1. The trial court in to contract for the determining authorizing principal liable as the transaction. buyer entered a contract Co., 485 out-of-state Paper 452 N.W.2d A Z Co. at 488-89. confer Unlike not distinguishable. (Minn.App.1990), There, separate four Schmidt, placed the defendant here, Leoni the case facts of making tele phone after over any allega- orders involve and Marshall products and inquiries regarding the phone aggressive It and fraud. is the tions of Minnesota, receiving form a part arguably fraudulent conduct payments seller. made to the Minnesota purposeful avail- satisfies Quality that Quoting analysis court Moun ment test. Feeds, S.A., 677 Impex, Inc. v. Argo taire (8th Cir.1982) (citations omit F.2d II. ted), stated: this court Next, Quality contends [plaintiff’s] unilateral We conclude the find by refusing erred to amend is insuffi- performance the forum state Quality was not ings fact to state that exercise of cient to against Kent Trad judgment liable for The sales [defendant]. deny Again, disagree. we An ing. [plaintiff] contracts [defen- findings of fact is ing motion to amend juris- do constitute a basis dant] Sandeen, Tompkins v. appealable. “Merely entering into a contract diction. Minn. provide a forum does not resident requisite contacts between [nonresi- defendant the forum state.” dent] DECISION *5 present The commercial in the contacts properly found that it had The trial court [plaintiff], but not case tie [defendant] appellant and the personal jurisdiction over is a defendant’s forum “It [the state]. motion is appellant’s denial of trial court’s that are of contacts with forum state properly not before this court. personam determining in if in interest exists, with a jurisdiction not its contacts Affirmed and remanded. resident.” HUSPENI, Judge (dissenting). Schmidt, 452 N.W.2d at 489. Wells, I in 264 N.W.2d respectfully Similarly, I dissent because believe Leoni v. Quali- 646, (Minn.1978), supreme court Minnesota and 647 the contacts between purchase the exer- “an isolated ty Fish are insufficient to held that by not itself cise of from a Minnesota seller will buyer subject jurisdiction to the exception to majority The carves out an found tele- Minnesota courts." The court requirements the minimum contact phone insufficient contacts calls letters involving exception over- cases fraud. defen- to exercise where the longstanding precedent requires looks state. dant had entered the contacts between the substantial forum nonresident, supreme than The reached a similar re and the rather Transport parties In a contract sult in Marshall Co. v. lawsuit. 534, action, Co., “the Minn. 537- contract must have substan- Bender-Goodman 275 161, 38, Dent-Air 148 163-64 where tial connection the state.” N.W.2d Inc., Serv., mail telephone Beech Air conversations and Inc. v. Mountain found 904, (Minn.1983) (citing contacts. correspondence 332 N.W.2d 907 be insufficient Co., 355 v. International Ins. The court reasoned that the defendant McGee Life 199, 201, aggressor 78 2 L.Ed.2d had not availed itself U.S. S.Ct. not the (1957)). right doing in Minnesota. business 537, 148 N.W.2d at 164. Id. at I find no can material distinction between only single sales Paper this case and S.B. v. A This case involves a Schmidt Co. Co., Paper (Minn.App. seller and to Z 452 N.W.2d 485 transaction between a Minnesota 1990). Schmidt, buyer a Florida this court held that a New brokered any mere fact that a resident and an does not conduct business. in independent activities Minneso- business here,

ta; product sell its does it does not here, and has no

not maintain an office Any in agents the state.

employees or activity

alleged did not create fraudulent between Minneso-

an additional connection Quality Fish.

ta and liquor in

Unlike the vendor Ins. BLC Co. Inc., 752, (Minn. 359 N.W.2d

v. Westin (Minn.

App.1985),pet. Apr. rev. denied 1985), denied, 844, 106 cert. 474 U.S. (1985),Quality

S.Ct. L.Ed.2d engage any such as behavior con

ducting advertising campaign on a

Minnesota radio station to solicit business. aggressively

Similarly, seek engage in a

out Minnesota residents to

complex ongoing arrangement financial Marquette as was

such the case Nat’l Norris, Minneapolis

Bank (Minn.1978), 293-94 Vikse v. (Minn.1982),

Flaby, 316 N.W.2d 282-83 Kopperud Agers, (Minn.1981). Rather, merely

placed for fish an order for which it ulti

mately payment. to make refused

Focusing connection between the

State of Minnesota and rather than *6 this court conclude, following holdings

should

Leoni, Marshall Schmidt that the lacked

I, accordingly, would dismiss the com-

plaint. Schmit, Wright Walling, S. Laura Sahr the Matter of WELFARE P.A., Berg, ap- Walling Minneapolis, & OF M.B.P. pellant Guardian Ad Litem M.B.P. No. C8-90-2516. Freeman, Hennepin County Michael O. Appeals

Court of of Minnesota. Carlson, Atty., Cory County Atty., A. Asst. respondent Minneapolis, Hennepin Aug. 1991. County. Review Denied Oct. Considered and decided KALITOWSKI, P.J., and KLAPHAKE and AMUNDSON, JJ.