United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
A.T., through her duly appointed guardian DENISE TRAVIS; DENISE TRAVIS and REGINALD TIMOTHY TRAVIS, individually, Plaintiffs,
NEWARK CORPORATION d/b/a ELEMENT 14, GOOD WILL INSTRUMENT CO., LTD., and INSTEK AMERICA CORP., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on defendants Good Will Instrument
Co., Ltd. (“Good Will”), and Instek America
Corp.'s (“Instek”) motion to dismiss (#51).
The matter is fully briefed. This Court lacks jurisdiction
over Good Will because it was not properly served. Thus, the
claims against Good Will are dismissed. This Court also lacks
personal jurisdiction over Instek, and the claims against it
will be dismissed.
Travis (“the decedent”) was electrocuted while
using a Tenma AC Power Source 72-7675, Serial No. 1102310
(“the Product”), at work. As a result, his
mother, father, and daughter brought this wrongful death
suit. Several companies were involved in manufacturing,
buying, and selling the Product before it arrived at the
Corporate Structure and Parties
Will is a Taiwanese business entity registered in Taiwan. Its
principal place of business is in Taiwan, and it has no
offices outside Taiwan.
California corporation-is Good Will's wholly owned
subsidiary. Its principal place of business is located in
California. Instek is a wholesaler that purchases all its
products from its parent company, Good Will.
Electronics (“Newark”) is an Indiana corporation
that has its principal place of business in Illinois. It uses
element 14 Asia Pte. Ltd. (a different company) to buy
products from Good Will and then resells the products in the
United States. Newark is not part of Good Will's
corporate family. Newark is a defendant in this case, but it
is not a party to this motion to dismiss.
Will designed the Product in Taiwan and then manufactured it
in China. Next, Good Will sold the Product to element 14,
which was doing business for Newark. The sale was finalized
in China, and Good Will shipped the Product from China (where
title passed to Newark) to South Carolina.
did not design, manufacture, buy, or sell the Product. It was
not involved with any transactions relating to the Product.
initially sued only Newark in state court (#3). In their
second amended complaint (#40), plaintiffs added Good Will
and Instek as defendants. Plaintiffs then delivered a copy of
the summons to Instek's headquarters in California. They
did not attempt to serve Good Will separately.
Will moves to dismiss on two grounds. First, it argues that
it was not properly served under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4. Second, it argues that the Court does not have
personal jurisdiction over it because Good Will does not have
sufficient minimum contacts with Missouri as required by the
Due Process Clause. In response, plaintiffs argue that Good
Will was properly served through its agent, Instek.
Plaintiffs also claim that this Court has personal
jurisdiction over Good Will based on a stream-of-commerce
argues only that the Court does not have personal
jurisdiction over it because Instek does not have sufficient
minimum contacts with Missouri as required by the Due Process
Clause. Plaintiff responds with the same stream-of-commerce