 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kluin v. American Suzuki Motor Corporation11/1/2002
he dealer faxed to the plaintiff in Kansas some of the defendant's promotional literature about the motorcycle (plaintiff believes the material was substantially the same as the information on defendant's web site).' [Emphasis added by district court.]
"6. In support of its motion to dismiss, Suzuki submitted an affidavit regarding the issue of personal jurisdiction. The affidavit establishes, among other things, that Suzuki:
'Is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Brea, California; 'Is not registered with the Kansas Secretary of State as a foreign corporation conducting business in Kansas and does not have an authorized agent for service of process in Kansas;
'Did not manufacture the motorcycle purchased by Kluin;
'Does not engage in direct sales or advertising in Kansas;
'Does not sell motorcycles on its web site;
'Does not pay taxes in the state of Kansas;
'Does not maintain any bank accounts, books or records in Kansas;
'Has no offices or agents located in Kansas and does not lease or own any real property in Kansas;
'Has no employees currently residing in Kansas;
'Title to all Suzuki products changes from it to independently owned and operated dealerships outside of Kansas;
'All sales of vehicles to the independently owned and operated dealerships are processed outside of Kansas and each dealership pays the cost of transportation of vehicles to it; and
'It does not control, supervise, direct the day-to-day operations of, or have any ownership interest in the independently owned and operated dealerships.
'This affidavit and the certificate of origin are signed by Suzuki's controller, Art Hashima.'"
The District Court's Conclusions
The district court, after a thorough analysis, concluded that (1) it did not have personal jurisdiction over Suzuki in this case, (2) no "act" occurred in Neosho County, Kansas, and (3) the motion to dismiss for lack of proper venue was moot.
DISCUSSION
The Discovery Issue
Kluin questions certain findings of the district court. He argues that the district court failed to give him the benefit of all factual doubt when considering the motion and erroneously made factual findings on disputed material facts. Kluin served interrogatories and a request for production on Suzuki with his petition. Suzuki neither answered the interrogatories nor produced the requested documents. Suzuki's response was to file the motion to dismiss at issue here. Kluin did not file a motion to compel discovery under K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 60-237.
The district court reasoned that there was sufficient information in the record to decide jurisdiction without additional discovery. On appeal, Kluin contends that the district court should have allowed him to conduct discovery on the questions of (1) "whether the defendant manufactured the motorcycle," (2) "the nature of the defendant's relationship with [Suzuki] dealers," and (3) "the extent of the defendant's business operations" in Kansas.
Suzuki counters that Kluin failed to show how those questions were material to the issue of personal jurisdiction. Suzuki asserts that, in response to its affidavit, Kluin was obligated to produce material facts, not mere "bald assertions," in support of his personal jurisdiction claim.
Control of discovery is entrusted to the sound discretion of the district court. Orders concerning discovery will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of clear abuse of discretion. Hill v. Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co., 263 Kan. 703
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Kansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|