Chapter 13 - § 13.2 MINIMUM CONTACTS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN DEFENDANT

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 13.2 MINIMUM CONTACTS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN DEFENDANT

Goettman v. North Fork Valley Restaurant, 176 P.3d 60 (Colo. 2007), was a wrongful death action arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred near Hotchkiss, Colorado. The plaintiff, Andrea Goettman, brought the action for the death of her husband, Michael Goettman, against several defendants, including Hydramatic Engineering, Pty. Ltd. ("Hydramatic"), an Australian limited liability company, whose employee, Phillip Dunn, caused the accident. After the trial court denied Hydramatic's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, Hydramatic petitioned the supreme court for relief under C.A.R. 21. The supreme court affirmed the trial court's order.

The decedent, a passenger in a car driven by Phillip Dunn, was killed when the vehicle went off the road and the decedent was ejected. Before the accident, Dunn and the decedent had been drinking at the North Fork Valley Restaurant and the Thirsty Parrot Pub in Hotchkiss, where they became intoxicated. The decedent was a Pennsylvania resident who was employed by ARO Mining Products, USA, Inc., a subsidiary of Hydramatic and its sole seller and distributer in the United States. ARO requested Hydramatic to send Dunn to Pennsylvania to assist ARO with service issues. Hydramatic knew that Dunn might also visit an ARO customer in Utah. After learning that the decedent was traveling to Colorado to provide service for the West Elk Mine in Somerset, Colorado, an ARO customer, Dunn volunteered to go to Colorado. In her complaint, Goettman alleged that Dunn traveled to and worked in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and that Hydramatic paid for his travel expenses, including rental cars, meals, and motels. On the night of the accident, the decedent and Dunn ate dinner together and continued to consume alcoholic beverages until about 1:00 a.m.

Goettman served her complaint against Hydramatic under Colorado's long-arm statute, C.R.S. § 13-1-124. That statute provides that anyone who, in person or by an agent, transacts any business or commits a tort in Colorado submits to the jurisdiction of its courts.

The supreme court noted that a party "seeking to invoke a Colorado court's jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, as in this case, must comply with the requirements of both due process and Colorado's long-arm statute." 176 P.3d at 66-67. Under the standard set forth in International Shoe Co. v....