Civil Practice – Personal Jurisdiction – Oklahoma Company – Aircraft Products

Cohen v. Continental Motors, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 012-078-17, 11 pp.) (Linda McGee, C.J.) Appealed from Nash County Superior Court (Marvin Blount III, J.) N.C. App. Unpub.

Holding: In an action by the executor of the estates of two people who died in a plane crash, North Carolina courts have jurisdiction over the Oklahoma company that overhauled and provided a starter adapter for the plane.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant Aircraft Accessories of Oklahoma, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Aircraft Accessories does not challenge any of the trial court’s findings of fact, so they are binding on appeal.

Aircraft Accessories argues that Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014), “tightened” the standards for specific jurisdiction. We do not agree.

Our court has held, “With respect to specific jurisdiction, the relationship among the defendant, the forum state, and the cause of action is the essential foundation for the exercise of in personam jurisdiction.” Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Caccuro, 212 N.C. App. 564, 712 S.E.2d 696 (2011). This is in line with the standard stated in Walden.

Aircraft Accessories purposely created contacts with North Carolina by selling a starter adapter to defendant Air Care Aviation Services, Inc., located in North Carolina, for $4,750 and by shipping this part into North Carolina.

Aircraft Accessories was found to have routinely done business with Air Care, engaging in $16,157.75 worth of business with Air Care for the period of June 21, 2012, to Dec. 16, 2013. Aircraft Accessories also routinely conducted business with other customers in North Carolina, maintained a mailing list of North Carolina customers, and had sold more than $260,000 worth of products to North Carolina customers since January 2012. The trial court found that Aircraft Accessories had continued to conduct business with North Carolina companies.

As to the source and connection of plaintiff’s cause of action to those contacts, the trial court found that the goods Aircraft Accessories sold and shipped to North Carolina were “causally related to the deaths” of plaintiff’s decedents. Thus, North Carolina has a manifest interest in providing plaintiff a convenient forum for redressing the injuries inflicted by Aircraft Accessories, an out-of-state actor.

Lastly, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that it would be more convenient for the parties to litigate this matter in a different forum.

Affirmed.