Krier v. Bartram's Equipment Sales & Service, LP et al

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 41 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Monti L. Belot on 8/4/2014. (smg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

PETER KRIER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
BARTRAM’S EQUIPMENT
SALES & SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION
No.

14-1072-MLB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case comes before the court on plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration.

(Doc. 41).

is ripe for decision.

The motion has been fully briefed and

(Doc. 42).

On July 7, 2014, the court granted the Krone defendants’ motions
to dismiss on the basis that this court lacked personal jurisdiction.
(Doc. 38).

To establish specific jurisdiction, plaintiff must set

forth allegations that the suit arises out of or relates to a
defendants’ contacts with the forum state.

Monge v. RG Petro-

Machinery (Grp.) Co. Ltd., 701 F.3d 598, 613 (10th Cir. 2012).

In

this case, the “undisputed facts show that the arrival of the Swather
in Kansas was not due to any action of BKH, MBK or Krone [the Krone
defendants].” (Doc. 38 at 5).
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration but does not state the basis
for his motion under Comeau v. Rupp, 810 F. Supp. 1172 (D. Kan. 1992).
The court construes plaintiff’s motion as seeking reconsideration on
the

basis

Plaintiff,

that

the

however,

court
does

not

misapprehended
challenge

the

the

applicable

court’s

ruling

law.
that

plaintiff must allege facts which establish that the injury arose from
defendants’ contacts with this state.

Plaintiff merely argues that

the Krone defendants concentrated their sales efforts in Kansas by
shipping products to Krone, in Texas, which in turn distributes
products to Kansas.

(Doc. 41 at 2).

The fact remains that the

Swather in this case was not delivered into Kansas by the Krone
defendants’ actions or with their knowledge, similar to the defendant
in Monge.

Therefore, specific jurisdiction cannot be established.1

Monge, 701 F.3d at 617 (Plaintiff’s injuries “must arise out of or
relate to activities that [defendants] purposefully directed at
residents of the forum.”)
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

(Doc. 41).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this

4th

day of August 2014, at Wichita, Kansas.

s/Monti Belot
Monti L. Belot
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Plaintiff’s motion does not argue that this court erroneously
held that the allegations concerning the Krone defendants’ conduct
could not establish general jurisdiction. Therefore, plaintiff has
not established personal jurisdiction by showing that the Krone
defendants’ contacts with Kansas were continuous and substantial. See
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2854
(2011).
-2-