959 F.2d 738 (8th Cir. 1992)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hicklin Engineering, Inc. v. Aidco, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Mar 25, 1992

959 F.2d 738 (8th Cir. 1992)

Summary

holding that allegedly defamatory statements about a business in Iowa, sent to out-of-state customers, did not invoke Calder even though competitive effects were felt in Iowa

Summary of this case from Paisley Park Enters., Inc. v. Boxill

See 15 Summaries

Opinion

No. 91-2741.

Submitted March 12, 1992.

Decided March 25, 1992.

Stephen R. Eckley and J. Barton Goplerud, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellant.

Roger T. Stetson and Robert D. Sharp, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

Before FAGG and BEAM, Circuit Judges, BATTEY, District Judge.

The HONORABLE RICHARD H. BATTEY, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Hicklin Engineering sued Aidco, Wyatt, Church, and Foor alleging intentional interference with prospective business advantage, interference with contractual relations, and libel. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Hicklin appeals, and we affirm.

Hicklin is a Minnesota corporation engaged in the manufacture and worldwide sale of transmission testing stands. Hicklin's principal and only place of business is Des Moines, Iowa. Aidco is a Michigan corporation having its principal place of business in Adrian, Michigan. Aidco is also involved in the manufacture and worldwide sale of transmission test stands. Wyatt is a citizen of Ohio, and Church and Foor are citizens of Michigan. Each of the individual appellees is a current or former officer or employee of Aidco.

Aidco is not licensed to do business in Iowa and does not maintain any offices, employees, or agents there. Furthermore, Aidco does not own property, have a bank account or have a telephone listing within the state. Aidco's last sale in Iowa occurred in 1989 and its penultimate sale within the state occurred in 1985. Neither Wyatt, Church, nor Foor have ever been in Iowa or own property there. Because personal jurisdiction in Iowa reaches to the fullest extent permitted by the Constitution, Newton Mfg. Co. v. Biopenetics, Ltd., 461 N.W.2d 472, 474 (1990), we need only examine whether minimum contacts sufficient to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment exist.

Hicklin contends that this case is governed by Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984). In Calder, Shirley Jones sued Calder and others in California for libel stemming from an article appearing in the tabloid National Enquirer. Calder, president and editor of the Enquirer, was a Florida resident and had only been to California twice, both times on unrelated matters. The Calder Court, approving of the effects test used by the lower court, held that personal jurisdiction in California existed even though the article had been written and edited in Florida and Calder's visits to California were unrelated to the suit. However, it was more than mere effects that supported the Court's holding. The Court found that Calder intentionally aimed his tortious action at California and could, therefore, have "reasonably anticipate[d] being haled into court here." Id. at 790, 104 S.Ct. at 1487 (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 567, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). Additionally, the Enquirer had a substantial percentage of its national circulation in California.

Calder is inapposite to the present case. Assuming Hicklin's allegations to be true, Aidco sent correspondence containing defamatory statements to several of Hicklin's customers and interfered with its business. None of the correspondence, however, was published in Iowa. Nor can we say that Aidco's actions were targeted to have an effect in Iowa. See Calder, 465 U.S. at 789, 104 S.Ct. at 1487. When a business seeks to promote its products and solicit the customers of its competitors, it necessarily wishes to have customers believe that its products are superior and to place its competitor's products in a less favorable light. Although this promotion and solicitation may have an effect on a competitor, absent additional contacts, this effect alone will not be sufficient to bestow personal jurisdiction. We do not mean to imply that we approve or disapprove of Aidco's actions, only to point out that the holding of Calder cannot be read as broadly as Hicklin wishes. See also Keystone Publishers Serv., Inc. v. Ross, 747 F.2d 1233, 1234 (8th Cir. 1984) (holding that interference with contractual relations occurring outside of Iowa and causing injury in Iowa is not sufficient to assert personal jurisdiction in Iowa).

For the reasons stated above we affirm the decision of the district court.

Summaries of

Hicklin Engineering, Inc. v. Aidco, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Mar 25, 1992

959 F.2d 738 (8th Cir. 1992)

holding that allegedly defamatory statements about a business in Iowa, sent to out-of-state customers, did not invoke Calder even though competitive effects were felt in Iowa

Summary of this case from Paisley Park Enters., Inc. v. Boxill

holding that although the defendants' alleged harmful activities may have harmed the plaintiff in the state of Iowa, "absent additional contacts, this effect alone will not be sufficient to bestow personal jurisdiction."

Summary of this case from Boyko v. Robinson

Summary of this case from Dakcoll, Inc. v. Grand Central Graphics, Inc.

holding that although the defendants' alleged harmful activities may have harmed the plaintiff in the state of Iowa, absent additional contacts, this effect alone will not be sufficient to bestow personal jurisdiction.

Summary of this case from Zidon v. Pickrell

Summary of this case from Atkinson v. McLaughlin

holding no jurisdiction over out-of-state defendant alleged to have intentionally interfered with Iowa plaintiffs prospective business advantage and contractual relations by sending allegedly defamatory correspondence to the plaintiffs customers, noting none of the correspondence was published in Iowa and it did not appear that the defendant's actions "were targeted to have an effect in Iowa"

Summary of this case from Capital Promotions v. Don King

holding that the defendant's knowledge that its tortious acts "may have an effect on a competitor, absent additional contacts," is insufficient to establish jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Pavlovich v. Superior Court

finding that though defendant's activities "may have an effect on a competitor, absent additional contacts, this effect alone will not be sufficient to bestow personal jurisdiction," and finding the Calder "effects" test "inapposite to the present case"

Summary of this case from Pro Edge, L.P. v. Gue

In Hicklin Engineering v. Aidco, Inc., 959 F.2d 738 (8th Cir. 1992), by contrast, the Eighth Circuit held that in an action for intentional interference with prospective business advantage there was no personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation that had done no more than send letters advertising its products (and incidentally denigrating the plaintiff's) to corporations that were out of state.

Summary of this case from Silent Drive, Inc. v. Strong Industries

requiring that even when an intentional tort is alleged and the defendant knows a resident plaintiff will be affected, “more than mere effects” are necessary “to bestow personal jurisdiction”

Summary of this case from Jacobs Trading, LLC v. Ningbo Hicon International Industry Co.

In Hicklin, an Iowa business operating exclusively in Iowa sued a Minnesota corporation in Iowa court for intentional interference with prospective business advantage, interference with contractual relations, and libel.

Summary of this case from Amerus Group Co. v. Ameris Bancorp

In Hicklin Engineering, Inc. v. Aidco, Inc., 959 F.2d 738 (8th Cir. 1992), the Eighth Circuit determined that the facts did not warrant application of the effects test to establish personal jurisdiction in Iowa.

Summary of this case from Estate of Witko v. Hornell Brewing Co.

In Hicklin Engineering, Inc. v. Aidco, Inc., 959 F.2d 738, 739 (8th Cir. 1992), the court noted that Calder did not depend entirely on "mere effects."

Summary of this case from Drayton Enterprises v. Dunker

In Hicklin, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the defendant had not aimed any of the allegedly wrongful acts at the forum state of Iowa and therefore held Calder was inapposite.

Summary of this case from Woodke v. Dahm

In Hicklin, the court declined the plaintiff's invitation to apply the effects test to claims of interference with prospective business advantage, interference with contractual relations, and libel, all of which arose from the nonresident defendant's act of mailing, to plaintiff's customers, letters containing allegedly defamatory statements about the plaintiff's products.

Summary of this case from Zumbro, Inc. v. California Natural Prod.

Hicklin Engineering, Inc. v. Aidco, Inc.

Summary

Opinion

Hicklin Engineering, Inc. v. Aidco, Inc.

Hicklin Engineering, Inc. v. Aidco, Inc.

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Hicklin Engineering, Inc. v. Aidco, Inc.

Summary

Opinion

Hicklin Engineering, Inc. v. Aidco, Inc.

Hicklin Engineering, Inc. v. Aidco, Inc.

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations