Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

99-3144 Kopke v. A. Hartrodt S.R.L., a foreign corporation

By: dmc-admin//July 16, 2001//

99-3144 Kopke v. A. Hartrodt S.R.L., a foreign corporation

By: dmc-admin//July 16, 2001//

Listen to this article

“The question presented is, therefore, whether the word ‘process’ means to bring about a physical transformation upon the products, materials, or things themselves, as urged by L’Arciere and RAS, or whether process is a broader term as suggested by the Seventh Circuit in Nelson [by Carson v. Park Industries, Inc. 717 F.2d 1120 (1983)], and by Kopke and Binda. We agree with Kopke and Binda. …

“Because the objective of the [state’s long-arm]statute was to expand personal jurisdiction we conclude that the broad definition of ‘process’ suggested by Nelson, 717 F.2d at 1124 n.5, properly reflects the legislative intent in adopting this statute. Further, this definition is in keeping with this court’s consistent statement that ‘statutes regulating long-arm jurisdiction are … to be given a liberal construction in favor of the exercise of jurisdiction.'”

In addition, the exercise of personal jurisdiction complies with due process because the cargo was introduced into the stream of commerce with the expectation that it would arrive in this forum.

“Applying that test to the present case, we conclude based upon the nature of the contractual relationship between L’Arciere and Binda [the Italian paper company that hired L’Arciere to load the cargo], the identification in the loading plans of the cargo’s destination as “Appleton” and “CTI Neenah,” as well as the damage reports from CTI [the American company that purchased the paper] which illustrate a not insignificant volume of business between CTI and Binda, the exercise of personal jurisdiction complies with the limits of due process. …

“L’Arciere’s handling of the final product is the alleged act of negligence that may have caused Kopke’s injuries. The product was shipped here as a result of the sale agreement between Binda and CTI. As a result of this sales agreement, the cargo container arrived in Wisconsin and Kopke was subsequently injured here. These business relationships benefited L’Arciere, and L’Arciere literally ‘played a hand’ in the product arriving in this state. Under these circumstances, we think it reasonable to conclude that the purposeful availment requirement is met and that L’Arciere has sufficient minimum contacts with this forum to be held accountable here if any negligence on its part in loading the cargo containers has resulted in damages. …

“In sum, the defendant must make a ‘compelling case’ that other consideration make the exercise of jurisdiction unreasonable. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477. We conclude that L’Arciere has not met this burden. As a result, we affirm the circuit court and conclude that personal jurisdiction over L’Arciere is permissible under both the Wisconsin long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION: Crooks, J., with whom Wilcox, J., joins. “I join the dissent of Justice DIANE S. SYKES, however, I write separately as to the majority’s conclusion that the evidence here establishes minimum contacts. If what the majority concludes qualifies as minimum contacts is indeed sufficient, then there is, in effect, nothing left of the doctrine of minimum contacts, which would limit the reach of a state court’s jurisdiction. According to the majority, a foreign company or organization need only provide a service to establish minimum contacts, even though the evidence presented fails to establish that that foreign company or organization had any knowledge that it was processing a product for arrival in a particular forum.”

DISSENTING OPINION: Sykes, J. “I join Justice Crooks’ dissent. I agree that Wisconsin’s long-arm statute, Wis. Stat. sec. 801.05(4)(b), has been satisfied, but that due process precludes the assertion of personal jurisdiction over L’Arciere. I write separately because I disagree with the majority’s adoption of the Seventh Circuit’s interpretation of the statute in Nelson v. Park Industries, Inc., 717 F.2d 1120 (7th Cir. 1983).”

Atkinson, J., Bablitch, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: W.H. Levit Jr., Winston A. Ostrow, Michael B. Apfeld, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Lee J. Geronime, David A. Krutz, Leslie C. Mastey, Chris J. Trebatoski, Milwaukee

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests