Bellboy Seafood Corp. v. Kent Trading Corp.
Also decided on this docket: Minn. Ct. App., September 25, 1991 473 N.W.2d 384
Cited by
- TRWL Financial Establishment v. Select International, Inc. 527 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Service, Inc. 332 N.W.2d 904
- Real Properties, Inc. v. Mission Insurance Co. 427 N.W.2d 665
- Kopperud v. Agers 312 N.W.2d 443
- Bellboy Seafood Corp. v. Kent Trading Corp. 473 N.W.2d 384
- Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. Norris 270 N.W.2d 290
- Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, Wis. 307 Minn. 290
- Leoni v. Wells 264 N.W.2d 646
- Marshall Egg Transport Co. v. Bender-Goodman Co. 275 Minn. 534
Opinion text
OPINION WAHL, Justice. We granted the petition of Quality Fish, a New York corporation, to review a split decision of the court of appeals, the majority of the panel having affirmed the trial court’s denial of Quality’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdictions. Bellboy Seafood Corp. v. Kent Trading Corp., 473 N.W.2d 384 (Minn.Ct.App.1991). We reverse. The only issue before this court is whether the contacts between Quality Fish and the State of Minnesota are sufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over this nonresident defendant. We conclude that they are not. The record demonstrates here but a single sales transaction between a Minnesota seller, Bellboy Seafood Corporation, and the New York purchaser, Quality — a transaction negotiated in the first instance by a Florida broker, Kent Trading Corporation. Quality conducts no business activities in this state; it does no advertising or distribution of its product here; it maintains no office and has neither employees nor agents in this state. The trial court and majority of the court of appeals’ panel, while recognizing that the quantity of contacts between this state and Quality were not considerable, nevertheless concluded that an “apparent fraudulent inducement of the transaction,” id. at 387 , is sufficient to support an exercise of personal jurisdiction. Citing Marquette Nat’l Bank v. Norris, 270 N.W.2d 290 (Minn.1978). It is our view that, even assuming the allegation of fraud contained in Bellboy’s complaint, the Marquette analysis is both factually and qualitatively distinguishable from the event which gave rise to this action. Instead, in application of the test enunciated in Aftanase v. Economy Baler Co., 343 F.2d 187 (8th Cir.1965), as adopted *797 by this court in Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, 307 Minn. 290 , 240 N.W.2d 814 (1976), the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over this nonresident defendant. See also Leoni v. Wells, 264 N.W.2d 646 (Minn.1978); Marshall Egg Transport Co. v. Bender-Goodman Co., 275 Minn. 534 , 148 N.W.2d 161 (1967). Reversed.