Ford Motor Company requested the Supreme Court to issue a writ of prohibition to prevent the enforcement of orders entered Oct. 5 and 21, by Wyoming Circuit Judge Warren McGraw and to dismiss Ford from the underlying civil action.
“By those orders, the circuit court denied Ford’s motion to dismiss the underlying complaint against it for lack of personal jurisdiction,” the May 18 opinion states. “Before this court, Ford contends the circuit court erred by refusing to dismiss it from the litigation because Ford is a nonresident corporation over which the circuit court lacks personal jurisdiction.”
Upon review, the Supreme Court granted the requested writ of prohibition, as moulded, and remanded the case back to Wyoming Circuit Court for further proceedings.
Justice Robin Jean Davis authored the majority opinion.
Jarred Wellman was killed on March 4, 2013, in a one-car-roll-over crash near Ghent, and, at the time of the crash, he had been operating a 2002 Ford Explorer.
It is alleged that the Explorer’s safety belt released webbing, the roof crushed, the driver’s window shattered out and he was partially ejected from the vehicle such that his head and upper torso struck the pavement, resulting in his death due to head trauma.
Jarred Wellman purchased the Explorer sometime after 2010 from MacArthur Auto Body & Repair Shop in Beckley.
Danny S. Wellman, Jarred Wellman’s father, filed his complaint in Wyoming Circuit Court against Ford asserting causes of action that included product liability, negligence and breach of warranty against Ford and the company who safety-checked the vehicle before it came into MacArthur’s possession.
The lawsuit was removed to federal court in March 2015 and then remanded in June 2015.
Ford filed a motion to dismiss and the trial court found that granting the motion to dismiss with “effectively deprive” Danny Wellman of his constitutional right of access to open courts for injury done to him.
The trial court concluded that it is the “ultimate absurdity” to suggest that Ford, the leading automobile manufacturer in the United States for more than a century, does not do business in West Virginia.
“The order provided that ‘[t]o hold Ford Motor Company does not do business in West Virginia to a sufficient degree to be ‘at home’ in West Virginia and be required to respond in our courts meets the ultimate [absurdity] definition from Black’s Law Dictionary…’”
Finally, the trial court concluded that “[t]he Ford emblem and logo, which may have existed for well over one-hundred years, is notably proper for the world’s leading manufacturer of automobiles in that it is a globe of the world…”
From this adverse ruling, Ford seeks extraordinary relief from this court to prohibit the trial court from enforcing its order.
“Due to the lack of a sufficient factual record, we find that Ford has not shown that it is entitled to a writ of prohibition as requested whereby this Court would dismiss it from the underlying civil action,” the opinion states. “However, the assertions of Ford regarding its challenge to jurisdiction are of such a significant nature that the parties are entitled to an opportunity to develop the record and submit argument to be considered and determined by the circuit court.”
Based upon the foregoing, the Petition for a Writ of Prohibition is granted, as moulded, and this matter is remanded with instructions.
“The trial court is directed to provide Mr. Wellman with an opportunity to meet the affidavit-supported challenge of Ford to the imposition of personal jurisdiction,” the opinion states. “Upon development of the factual record, the parties shall be afforded an opportunity to submit written memoranda of law, and the trial court shall proceed to analyze and decide the matter in accord with the law, authorities, and principles discussed herein and with due consideration of the arguments of the parties.”
The Supreme Court stated that it observes that it is not dictating whether or to what extent jurisdictional discovery should be permitted as this is a matter to be determined in the first instance by the trial court.
“Nor are we directing whether there should be an evidentiary hearing on the question of jurisdiction,” the opinion states. “We simply are remanding this case for the court to undertake the proceedings it deems appropriate and to enter an order analyzing and determining the due process requirements with respect to the challenges to both general and specific personal jurisdiction raised by the parties.”
The petitioner is represented by Jonathan D. Hacker and Bradley N. Garcia of O’Melveny & Myers LLP; and Michael Bonasso, Elizabeth L. Taylor and Mitchell B. Tuggle of Flaherty, Sensabaugh Bonasso PLLC.
Danny S. Wellman is represented by Patrick E. McFarland of Patrick E. McFarland PLLC; Christopher J. Heavens of Heavens Law Firm PLLC; and Jamie D. Jackson of Atlee Hall PLLC.
W.Va. Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 15-1149