Wheelbarger v. Detroit Diesel ECM, LLC

31 Neb.App. 145

978 N.W.2d 334

Shawn WHEELBARGER, appellant,

v.DETROIT DIESEL ECM, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, and Mike Rodriguez, doing business as M & C Distributing, appellees.

No. A-21-556.

Court of Appeals of Nebraska.

Filed June 28, 2022.

Jared J. Krejci, of Smith, Johnson, Allen, Connick & Hansen, Grand Island, for appellant.

No appearance for appellees.

Pirtle, Chief Judge, and Riedmann and Welch, Judges.

Welch, Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Shawn Wheelbarger appeals from the order of the Buffalo County District Court dismissing his complaint against Detroit Diesel ECM, LLC (Detroit Diesel), and Mike Rodriguez, doing business as M & C Distributing (M & C), for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In August 2017, Wheelbarger filed a complaint which asserted that Newcomb Diesel LLC (Newcomb), Detroit Diesel, and Rodriguez, doing business as M & C, were liable for damage to Wheelbarger's semi-trucks which was caused by software installed by Newcomb while completing maintenance and repairs on the trucks.

Newcomb is a limited liability company organized in Nebraska with its principal place of business located in Kearney, Nebraska. M & C was the sole proprietorship of Rodriguez, who resided in Shelbyville, Michigan, prior to Rodriguez’ transitioning the business into a limited liability company which he named "Detroit Diesel." Detroit Diesel is organized in Michigan, with its principal place of business in Wayland, Michigan. Rodriguez, doing business as M & C, and Detroit Diesel will collectively be referred to as the "Michigan Defendants." The Michigan Defendants entered a special appearance and filed a motion to dismiss Wheelbarger's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss asserted that the Michigan Defendants did not have sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Nebraska to establish general or specific personal jurisdiction and that Wheelbarger failed to satisfy his burden to show that the court had jurisdiction over them.

At a hearing held in February 2018, the matter was submitted solely on the pleadings and supporting affidavits.

In March 2018, the district court dismissed Wheelbarger's complaint as to the Michigan Defendants stating:

In the present matter there is no evidence of any contact between [Wheelbarger] and the Michigan [Defendants], the reasonable inferences are that there was not. The benchmark for determining whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction satisfies due process is whether the defendant's minimum contacts with the forum state are such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. VKGS [v. Planet Bingo , 285 Neb. 599, 828 N.W.2d 168 (2013) ]. The Court finds that [Wheelbarger] has failed to make a prima facie showing that the Michigan Defendants have the requisite minimum contacts with the State of Nebraska.

Wheelbarger and Newcomb subsequently filed a joint motion and stipulation for dismissal with prejudice as to Newcomb. The court dismissed the action on June 4, 2021. Wheelbarger appealed the court's March 2018 order granting the Michigan Defendants’ motion to dismiss after the final order was entered on June 4.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Wheelbarger assigns that the district court erred in granting the Michigan Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Michigan Defendants. Wheelbarger does not assert any error related to the district court's dismissal of Newcomb.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When a jurisdictional question does not involve a factual dispute, determination of a jurisdictional issue is a matter of law which requires an appellate court to determine the matter independently of the trial court.

Brunkhardt v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. , 269 Neb. 222, 691 N.W.2d 147 (2005).

When reviewing an order dismissing a party from a case for lack of personal jurisdiction under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(2), an appellate court examines the question of whether the nonmoving party has established a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction de novo. Nimmer v. Giga Entertainment Media , 298 Neb. 630, 905 N.W.2d 523 (2018) ; Applied Underwriters v. E.M. Pizza , 26 Neb. App. 906, 923 N.W.2d 789 (2019).

In reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss, an appellate court must look at the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all factual conflicts in favor of that party. Id.

ANALYSIS

Before addressing Wheelbarger's assigned error, a brief review of the law concerning personal jurisdiction is in order. Personal jurisdiction is the power of a tribunal to subject and bind a particular entity to its decisions. Quality Pork Internat. v. Rupari Food Servs. , 267 Neb. 474, 675 N.W.2d 642 (2004). Confronted with a special appearance, a plaintiff has the burden to establish facts which demonstrate the court's personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Id. In a hearing on a special appearance, an affidavit may be used to prove or disprove the factual basis for a court's assertion or exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Id. When a jurisdictional question does not involve a factual dispute, determination of a jurisdictional issue is a matter of law which requires an appellate court to reach a conclusion independent from the trial court. Id.

As this court recently explained in Applied Underwriters v. E.M. Pizza , 26 Neb. App. at 911-13, 923 N.W.2d at 796-97 :

When determining whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a party, it must first determine whether a state's long-arm statute is satisfied, and if the long-arm statute is satisfied, whether minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum state for personal jurisdiction over the defendant without offending due process. See RFD-TV v. WildOpenWest Finance , 288 Neb. 318, 849 N.W.2d 107 (2014). Nebraska's long-arm statute, § 25-536, provides that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who has any contact with or maintains any relation to this state to afford a basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction consistent with the Constitution of the United States. VKGS v. Planet Bingo , 285 Neb. 599, 828 N.W.2d 168 (2013). It was the intention of the Legislature to provide for the broadest allowable jurisdiction over nonresidents under Nebraska's long-arm statute. Id. ...

The Due Process Clause protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he or she has established no meaningful contacts, ties, or relations. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz , 471 U.S. 462, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985). To subject an out-of-state defendant to personal jurisdiction in the forum court, due process requires the defendant to have minimum contacts with the forum state so as not to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. VKGS v. Planet Bingo, supra. Due process is satisfied where the nonresident defendant's minimum contacts are such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. See id. Further, whether a forum state court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant depends on whether the defendant's actions created substantial connections with the forum state, resulting in the defendant's purposeful availment of the forum state's benefits and protections. Id.

A court exercises two types of personal jurisdiction depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case: general personal jurisdiction and specific personal jurisdiction.

Nimmer v. Giga Entertainment Media , 298 Neb. 630, 905 N.W.2d 523 (2018). A court has general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant has engaged in continuous and systematic business connections with the forum state. See id. When a court is exercising general personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff's claim does not have to arise directly from the defendant's conduct in the forum state. See id.

In the present case, the Michigan Defendants did not engage in continuous and systematic business connections in Nebraska, and Wheelbarger does not appear to assert otherwise. Therefore, if the court has personal jurisdiction over the Michigan Defendants, it can only be under specific personal jurisdiction.

As we further stated:

Specific personal jurisdiction arises where the nonresident defendant's contacts with the forum state are neither continuous nor systematic, but the plaintiff's claim arises from the defendant's minimum contacts with the forum. See [ Nimmer v. Giga Entertainment Media , 298 Neb. 630, 905 N.W.2d 523 (2018) ]. Whether a forum state court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant depends on whether the defendant's contacts with the forum state are the result of unilateral acts performed by someone other than the defendant, or whether the defendant himself acted in a manner which creates substantial connections with the forum state. Quality Pork Internat. v. Rupari Food Servs. , 267 Neb. 474, 675 N.W.2d 642 (2004).

If a court determines that a defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state, the court must then weigh the facts of the case to determine whether exercising personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice. See VKGS v. Planet Bingo , 285 Neb. 599, 828 N.W.2d 168 (2013).

Applied Underwriters v. E.M. Pizza , 26 Neb. App. 906, 913, 923 N.W.2d 789, 797 (2019).

MINIMUM CONTACTS

Here, the district court found that the Michigan Defendants did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Nebraska, and therefore, it never reached the issue of whether it would be fair and reasonable to exercise personal jurisdiction over them. We agree.

The relevant facts in this record were contained in an affidavit provided by Rodriguez. Rodriguez explained that he operates M & C and Detroit Diesel as a " ‘middleman’ " to connect software designers to mechanics in need of software for...