X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:After Charles Shane Smith was allegedly injured in a fall when the seat broke on his tree-mounted deer stand, he filed a products liability action against a number of defendants alleged to have placed the deer stand into the stream of commerce. Buckfinder Hunting Products Inc. submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, but Carlson Manufacturing Inc. filed a special appearance. Smith argued that Carlson was subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas courts because Buckfinder conducted business in Texas and the two corporations maintained a single business enterprise. Smith also argued to the trial court that Buckfinder was an alter ego of Carlson. The trial court denied the special appearance and Carlson filed an interlocutory appeal. At issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred: 1. in imputing another corporation’s contacts to Carlson; and 2. by denying a special appearance filed by a corporation that conducts no business in Texas and did not manufacture, market or sell the product at issue in the litigation. HOLDING:Reversed and rendered. The court states that, upon filing its special appearance, Carlson assumed the burden to negate all bases of personal jurisdiction alleged by Smith. Carlson, a Minnesota corporation not registered to do business in Texas, presented evidence that it maintains no office in Texas, and neither commits any acts within the state nor consummates any transactions here. Carlson showed that it operates a machine shop in Minnesota and has never manufactured, distributed or sold tree stands used by hunters, including the stand used by Smith. The chief executive officer of Carlson admitted that a Carlson employee might on occasion machine a part that would be incorporated into products sold and marketed by Buckfinder, but stated that he had personally examined the stand involved in this case and “did not identify any part of the chair that was made, in whole or in part,” by Carlson. Thus, Carlson contends, its independent contacts with Texas do not support the exercise of either specific or general jurisdiction. The court rejects Smith’s argument that Carlson and Buckfinder are either the same entity or have an alter ego relationship. The court finds that Carlson owns no shares of Buckfinder or Buckfinder Industrial Development Inc., two separate and distinct corporations chartered by the State of Minnesota. The court notes that Warren Carlson is the president of all three corporations, but also points out that Carlson was incorporated many years before the 1999 incorporation of Buckfinder and Buckfinder Industrial and that their resources are not integrated with one another. The court also emphasizes that Buckfinder and Buckfinder Industrial operate as separate corporations capitalized as required by Minnessota law, and file separate tax returns from Carlson. The court therefore holds that, although Smith presented some evidence that Buckfinder has a parasitic existence upon Carlson, there is no evidence that their arrangement is illegal or that the companies failed to observe corporate formalities. The court concludes that the trial court could not apply an alter ego theory to assume jurisdiction over Carlson based upon Buckfinder’s acts in the state of Texas. The court also rejects Smith’s contention that the corporations should be treated as one enterprise. The court finds that Buckfinder maintained its offices in Carlson’s building, but also finds no evidence of common employees, centralized accounting, payment of wages, use of a common business name, using the services of the other corporation’s employees, undocumented transfers of funds, or allocation of profit and loss. The court disagrees with Smith’s assertion that Buckfinder is a mere tool or conduit of Carlson because there is no evidence that any of the benefits of Buckfinder conducting business in the state of Texas or anywhere else inured to Carlson. The court concludes that Carlson therefore did not purposefully establish sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to support exercising jurisdiction over it and that the trial court erred in denying the special appearance. The court reverses the trial court’s order and renders judgment dismissing Smith’s claims against Carlson. OPINION:Steve McKeithen, C.J.; McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.