Troyer et al v. Umarex Sportwaffen GmbH & CO

Filing 29

OPINION; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
__________________________
PHILLIP TROYER and SHIRLEY
TROYER,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 1:14-CV-166

UMAREX Sportwaffen GmbH & Co.
KG, a German Corporation,

HON. GORDON J. QUIST

Defendant.
_______________________________/
OPINION
Plaintiff, Phillip Troyer, alleges that he was injured by a firearm manufactured by the
predecessor of Defendant, a German corporation. Troyer and his wife filed a complaint against
Defendant in this Court. Defendant has moved to dismiss, arguing that the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over it. Plaintiffs have not responded to that motion. For the reasons that follow, the
Court will grant Defendant’s motion.
Legal Standard
A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of personal jurisdiction. Air Prods.
& Controls v. Safetech Int’l, Inc., 503 F.3d 544, 549 (6th Cir. 2007). In a diversity action, the
exercise of jurisdiction is permissible if it is authorized under the state’s long-arm statute and it
comports with due process. Id. at 549. The exercise of jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant
comports with due process if the defendant has “certain minimum contacts ... such that the
maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. ” Int’l
Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158 (1945) (internal quotation marks
omitted). To satisfy the minimum contacts inquiry, the plaintiff must demonstrate that “the
defendant's suit-related conduct . . . create[s] a substantial connection with the forum State.” Walden
v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1121 (2014).

Discussion
Defendant argues that it lacks sufficient minimum contacts with Michigan to satisfy the due
process inquiry. For sufficient minimum contacts to exist, a defendant must have a relationship with
the forum that “arise[s] out of contacts that the ‘defendant himself’ create[d] with the forum State.”
Walden, 134 S. Ct. at 1122 (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S. Ct.
2174, 2184 (1985)). In other words, a plaintiff cannot “satisfy the defendant-focused ‘minimum
contacts’ inquiry by demonstrating contacts between the plaintiff . . . and the forum State.” Id.
Morever, the “‘minimum contacts’ analysis looks to the defendant’s contacts with the forum State
itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there.” Id.
In this case, Defendant does not appear to have created any contacts with this State— it has
no facilities or employees in Michigan, does not advertise in Michigan, and has no direct sales to
Michigan residents. Rather, it appears that Defendant’s sole connection to Michigan is that a
firearm that Defendant’s predecessor manufactured ended up in the hands of Troyer, a Michigan
resident, and that Troyer was injured by the firearm in Michigan. Those facts do not demonstrate
that Defendant created sufficient minimum contacts with Michigan to allow the exercise of
jurisdiction over it.
Conclusion
The fact that a firearm allegedly manufactured by Defendant’s predecessor injured a
Michigan resident in the forum is insufficient to constitute the “minimum contacts” necessary to
satisfy the due process inquiry. Accordingly, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over
Defendant, and will grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss. An order consistent with this Opinion
shall issue.

Dated: September 9, 2015

/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2