The Gathering Tree v. Mudbots, LLC

Filing 25

ORDER denying 4 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Signed on 9/24/24 by District Judge M. Douglas Harpool. (View, Pat)

IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
THE GATHERING TREE d/b/a Eden Village,
Plaintiff,
v.
MUDBOTS, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 6:24-cv-03050-MDH

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. (Doc. 4).
Defendant moves to dismiss this case arguing a lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
Plaintiff has filed its opposition. The Court held a hearing and allowed the parties to submit
additional briefing. The matter is now ripe for review.
BACKGROUND
Defendant Mudbots is a manufacturer of automated robotic printers which print and erect
buildings out of concrete. Mudbots is headquartered in Tooele, Utah. The Gathering Tree is a
Missouri not-for-profit that operates in Missouri by building and managing private housing
collectives for individuals who have been chronically unsheltered. Eden Building Solutions, LLC
is a Missouri limited liability company operating in Missouri, with its principal place of business
in Springfield, Missouri, organized for the purposes of performing and/or organizing the actual
building of the homes managed and supported by The Gathering Tree.
Nate Schlueter, who Plaintiff contends was the Chief Visionary Officer for The Gathering
Tree and also a representative to Eden Building Solutions LLC (not a party to this action),
investigated the potential of 3D printing on behalf of the Gathering Tree and discovered Mudbots.
After submitting his information and inquiry on Mudbots’ website the parties had multiple phone
1

calls regarding the prospective purchase of two Mudbots’ printers. Plaintiff sent individuals to
Utah to train in person at Mudbots’ facility prior to purchasing the printers.
The record reflects Nate Schlueter signed several documents between Plaintiff and
Defendant and also Eden Building Solutions and Defendant. Plaintiff admits Schlueter signed the
NDA, Training Agreement and/or Master Dealer Agreement. Plaintiff argues Plaintiff never
signed the Universal Terms of Purchase (“UTOP”) agreement. However, the record reflects the
UTOP is referenced in other signed agreements and available on Defendant’s website to which
Plaintiff had access. Defendant contends in connection with Plaintiff’s purchase of the printers,
for $1.6 million, Plaintiff signed documentation agreeing to the UTOP with Mudbots. The
Universal Terms of Service contain a forum selection clause naming Utah as the selected forum
of the parties.
After the purchase of the equipment the parties continued to communicate regarding the
equipment. However, at some point the relationship deteriorated. Defendant argues that Plaintiff
commenced this lawsuit three days after receiving a cease-and-desist letter from Mudbots
threatening legal action for repeated violations of the UTOP.
Currently, Defendant does not argue that the forum selection clause requires the Court to
dismiss or transfer this case. Instead, Defendant states “if subjected to jurisdiction, Defendant
intends to bring a separate Motion for Change of Venue” based on the contracts and agreements
between the parties. Defendant specifically states it “cannot do so now while appearing only
specially to contest jurisdiction” which it has presented in the pending motion. In response Plaintiff
agrees that Defendant has only raised the issue of personal jurisdiction in its motion.

2

LEGAL STANDARD
Personal jurisdiction is an “essential element” of a court’s jurisdiction, “without which the
court is powerless to proceed to an adjudication.” Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574,
584 (1999). The burden to establish personal jurisdiction lies with Plaintiff. Epps v. Stewart
Information Services Corp., 327 F.3d 642, 647 (8th Cir. 2003) (“The party seeking to establish the
court’s in personam jurisdiction carries the burden of proof, and the burden does not shift to the
party challenging jurisdiction.”). To defeat a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction,
Plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction. Id.
The “longarm statute” in Missouri reads in pertinent part as follows:
1. Any person or firm, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, or any
corporation, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in
this section, thereby submits such person, firm, or corporation, and, if an individual,
his personal representative, to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any
cause of action arising from the doing of any of such acts:
(1) The transaction of any business within this state;
(2) The making of any contract within this state;
State ex rel. Metal Serv. Ctr. of Georgia, Inc. v. Gaertner, 677 S.W.2d 325, 327 (Mo. 1984).
The legislature, in enacting this statute, intended to provide for jurisdiction, within the
specific categories enumerated in the statutes, to the full extent permitted by the due process clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. Due Process requires minimum contacts between a nonresident defendant and the forum state such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S.
286, 291-92 (1980). A non-resident defendant's contacts with a forum state, for example, must be

3

sufficient to cause the defendant to “reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Epps v.
Stewart Info. Servs. Corp., 327 F.3d at 648.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues Mudbots’ conduct satisfies Missouri’s Long-Arm Statute because Mudbots
transacted business by sending its products to Missouri, by advertising to Missouri residents
through its website, and by repeatedly and directly communicating with The Gathering Tree by
telephone, email and through its website, for the purpose of persuading The Gathering Tree to buy
products from Mudbots to be used in Missouri. In addition, after the sale, Mudbots continued to
direct communications to The Gathering Tree in Missouri for the purpose of providing customer
support to effectuate its duties under the contract. Plaintiff also cites to MudBots’ interactive
website as contacts with Missouri.
In addition, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges Mudbots engaged in tortious conduct, including
fraud and negligent misrepresentation, in its interactions with Plaintiff. Plaintiff further contends
Mudbots was aware that it was selling equipment to Plaintiffs in Missouri for the purposes of
printing homes in Missouri, that it had significant contacts with Plaintiff who were in Missouri
through both the sale and subsequent interactions based on the equipment, and that the alleged
fraudulent or negligent representations were made in connection with individuals who were
located in Missouri.
Defendant’s arguments that Plaintiff has failed to allege any actual sales, phone calls,
advertisements, or other interactions is unpersuasive. In fact, Plaintiff also alleges Defendant
installed and utilized a GPS tracker to monitor the equipment Plaintiff purchased that would be
used in Missouri. The Court finds Plaintiff’s have pled sufficient facts to subject Defendant to
jurisdiction in Missouri.

4

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 24, 2024

s/ Douglas Harpool
Douglas Harpool, District Judge

5