Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffdefendantjurisdictionstatutetrialmotioncorporationmotion to dismiss
contractplaintiffdefendantjurisdictionstatutetrialaffidavitpleamotioncorporationmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Hudson v. Hermann Pfauter GmbH & Co., 117 F.R.D. 33, 9 Fed.R.Serv.3d 301
View Case »
Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U.S. 1, 30 S.Ct. 682, 54 L.Ed. 905, 28 L.R.A.N.S. 1068, 20 Am.Ann.Cas. 1061
View Case »
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328, 63 USLW 4243, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,681
View Case »
Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 84 S.Ct. 805, 11 L.Ed.2d 945, 8 Fed.R.Serv.2d 17b.11, 1
View Case »
Paris v. Cooper, 158 Ga.App. 212, 279 S.E.2d 507
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Nordberg Division of Rex Chainbelt Inc. v. Hudson Engineering Corp., 361 F.Supp. 903

Facts

The plaintiff, Nordberg Division of Rex Chainbelt Inc., is a Wisconsin corporation that manufactures machinery, including heavy-duty engines. The defendant, Hudson Engineering Corporation, is a Texas corporation that builds gasoline plants and related industrial buildings. The contract in question was negotiated in Texas, but the turbine was manufactured in Wisconsin. The defendant's personnel visited Wisconsin multiple times during the contract period, which led to the dispute over the last payment of $75,730.78 due to alleged defects in the turbine.

The pleadings and affidavits reveal the following facts. The defendant Hudson Engineering Corporation is an engineering contracting company which builds gasoline plants and related industrial buildings. Its principal place of business is in Houston, Texas, and it operates in Texas, Louisiana, and other gas producing states not including Wisconsin. Apparently it has had no contact with Wisconsin outside this case. The plaintiff Nordberg Division of Rex Chainbelt Inc. is in the business of manufacturing machinery, including heavy duty engines, which are sold to customers throughout the country. Its principal place of business is in Milwaukee, and it has sales employees permanently located in several major cities including Houston.

Issue

Whether the Wisconsin courts have personal jurisdiction over the Texas corporation, Hudson Engineering, given that it was not served within Wisconsin.

Whether the Wisconsin courts have personal jurisdiction over the Texas corporation, Hudson Engineering, given that it was not served within Wisconsin.

Rule

Under Wisconsin's long-arm statute, jurisdiction can be established if the action arises out of services performed for the defendant within the state or relates to goods shipped from the state by the plaintiff to the defendant.

Subsections 5(b) and (d) of § 262.05 , the Wisconsin long-arm statute, appear to reach defendant and satisfy this requirement since they provide jurisdiction: “(5) *** In any action which: “(b) Arises out of services actually performed *** for the defendant by the plaintiff within this state if such performance within this state was authorized or ratified by the defendant; or “(d) Relates to goods, *** shipped from this state by the plaintiff to the defendant on his order or direction; ***”

Analysis

The court analyzed the defendant's contacts with Wisconsin and determined that the nature of the transaction, including the visits by the defendant's personnel to Wisconsin and the manufacturing of the turbine in Wisconsin, established sufficient contacts to justify jurisdiction. The court noted that the defendant's involvement in the transaction was significant and that the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

The court analyzed the defendant's contacts with Wisconsin and determined that the nature of the transaction, including the visits by the defendant's personnel to Wisconsin and the manufacturing of the turbine in Wisconsin, established sufficient contacts to justify jurisdiction. The court noted that the defendant's involvement in the transaction was significant and that the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Conclusion

The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, concluding that Wisconsin had personal jurisdiction over Hudson Engineering Corporation due to its substantial contacts with the state related to the contract.

The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, concluding that Wisconsin had personal jurisdiction over Hudson Engineering Corporation due to its substantial contacts with the state related to the contract.

Who won?

The plaintiff, Nordberg Division of Rex Chainbelt Inc., prevailed in the case as the court found that personal jurisdiction was established over the defendant.

The plaintiff, Nordberg Division of Rex Chainbelt Inc., prevailed in the case as the court found that personal jurisdiction was established over the defendant.

You must be