{ "id": 1580006, "name": "CUSTOMWOOD MFG., INC., a New Mexico corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOWNEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Customwood Mfg. Inc. v. Downey Construction Co.", "decision_date": "1984-11-20", "docket_number": "No. 15490", "first_page": "56", "last_page": "58", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "102 N.M. 56" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "691 P.2d 57" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "84 N.M. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2768803 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/84/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 N.M. 384", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2809067 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/77/0384-01" ] }, { "cite": "343 N.E.2d 647", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 Ill.App.3d 204", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2633641 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/36/0204-01" ] }, { "cite": "357 U.S. 235", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6162253 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1958, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "253", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" }, { "page": "1239", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" }, { "parenthetical": "emphasis added" }, { "page": "253" }, { "page": "1239" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/357/0235-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 N.M. 532", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2840666 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "534" }, { "page": "827" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/88/0532-01" ] }, { "cite": "326 U.S. 310", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6157001 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1945, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "316" }, { "page": "158" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/326/0310-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 N.M. 129", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1584636 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/99/0129-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 425, "char_count": 7065, "ocr_confidence": 0.826, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.481050950021276e-07, "percentile": 0.8075117506850785 }, "sha256": "72ea765d0de175572a63147999ce9bfface59d40ab14fa988cad158bb945072a", "simhash": "1:3237d5a35405736a", "word_count": 1122 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:42:54.117025+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "SOSA, Senior Justice, and RIORDAN, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "CUSTOMWOOD MFG., INC., a New Mexico corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOWNEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nFEDERICI, Chief Justice.\nThis case is before us through interlocutory appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County. Customwood Mfg., Inc., the plaintiff-appellee (plaintiff), a New Mexico corporation, filed a complaint for debt against Downey Construction Co., Inc., the defendant-appellant (defendant), a Nevada corporation. Process was served on defendant in Nevada. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The motion was denied by the trial court. Defendant then filed an application for an order allowing appeal. The trial court had not made findings of fact, but a review of the complaint and affidavits revealed that there was no dispute as to facts material to the jurisdictional issue, and this Court granted an interlocutory appeal. We reverse the trial court.\nThe issue on appeal is whether the defendant \u201ctransacted any business\u201d within New Mexico, and is therefore subject to jurisdiction of New Mexico courts under the New Mexico long-arm statute, NMSA 1978, Section 38-l-16(A)(l). Defendant\u2019s contacts in New Mexico were insufficient to constitute a transaction of business within the State, under the meaning of the long-arm statute, and therefore insufficient to support assertion of jurisdiction over defendant by New Mexico courts.\nDefendant, a construction company, was awarded a contract to build a large house in Las Vegas, Nevada. At the time defendant bid on the contract, it was told by the architect that he and the owner had already selected plaintiff to supply all of the doors for the house. Defendant and all of the other bidders were given an allowance for the doors to be included in the bid. Once defendant was awarded the bid it placed a purchase order with plaintiff for the doors, as it had been instructed to do. As work progressed, there were also telephone calls between plaintiff and defendant, some of them initiated by defendant, and defendant periodically mailed payments to plaintiff for doors received. It is not contended that defendant has ever done business in New Mexico nor had any other contact within New Mexico except as just described. No employee or agent of defendant ever traveled to New Mexico, and defendant never solicited for business or supplies in New Mexico.\nAfter the front doors were installed in the house they began to weather poorly. Plaintiff sent an employee to Nevada to inspect the doors, and eventually sent another employee to refinish them. This dispute arises out of expenses that plaintiff incurred in inspecting and repairing the doors. Plaintiff contends that defendant, by its contacts with plaintiff, and specifically its mailing of a purchase order to plaintiff, transacted business within New Mexico and therefore is subject to New Mexico jurisdiction under NMSA 1978, Section 38-1-16(A)(1).\nPlaintiff correctly asserts that a single transaction of business within this State can be sufficient to subject a nonresident defendant to the jurisdiction of New Mexico courts, provided that the cause of action being sued upon arises from that particular transaction of business. NMSA 1978, \u00a7 38-l-16(A)(l); Moore v. Graves, 99 N.M. 129, 654 P.2d 582 (Ct.App.1982). In determining whether defendant\u2019s activity within the State amounts to a transaction of business, though, it is necessary to keep in mind the due process constraints upon exercise of jurisdiction that were announced in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). \u201c[D]ue process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend \u2018traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 316, 66 S.Ct. at 158. \u201cWe have repeatedly equated the \u2018transaction of business\u2019 \u2014 insofar as the acquisition of long-arm jurisdiction under our statute is concerned \u2014 with the due process standard of \u2018minimum contacts\u2019 * * Telephonic, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 88 N.M. 532, 534, 543 P.2d 825, 827 (1975). A central factor in determining whether these \u201cminimum contacts\u201d were established is the degree to which defendant purposefully initiated its activity within the State. \u201c[I]t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.\u201d Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1239, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958) (emphasis added).\nIt is this purposefulness on the part of the defendant, in establishing its contact with New Mexico, that is lacking in this case. Defendant did mail a purchase order to plaintiff in New Mexico, but only pursuant to an agreement which plaintiff had already worked out with other parties. In this respect we find this case to be very similar to Artoe v. Mann, 36 Ill.App.3d 204, 343 N.E.2d 647 (1976). In Artoe the plaintiff, an Illinois resident, initiated contacts with the defendant, a California resident. After negotiations the defendant eventually mailed a purchase order to the plaintiff in Illinois. The Illinois court concluded that the purchase order was really only a confirmation of an agreement already reached by the parties, not an initiation of an agreement by the defendant, and therefore declined to assert jurisdiction over the defendant under the \u201ctransacting business\u201d provision of the Illinois long-arm statute. Because New Mexico\u2019s long-arm statute was adopted directly from that of Illinois, we regard Illinois cases on long-arm jurisdiction as persuasive authority. Blount v. T D Publishing Corp., 77 N.M. 384, 423 P.2d 421 (1966). We also find Artoe to be well-reasoned.\nSimilarly, in the instant case, the purchase order mailed by defendant is more accurately characterized as a confirmation of a business deal already established, than as an initiation of a deal by defendant. Defendant stepped into a business arrangement which plaintiff and others had already established, and did not purposefully avail itself of the \u201cprivilege of conducting activities within\u201d New Mexico, \u201cthus invoking the benefits and protections\u201d of New Mexico law. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. at 253, 78 S.Ct. at 1239. The fact that defendant made several telephone calls and mailed payments to plaintiff in New Mexico does not alter this conclusion. Diamond A Cattle Co. v. Broadbent, 84 N.M. 469, 505 P.2d 64 (1973).\nWe reverse the trial court\u2019s denial of the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and remand the cause for proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nSOSA, Senior Justice, and RIORDAN, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "FEDERICI, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Richard B. Addis, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellee.", "D. James Sorenson, Johnson & Lanphere, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "691 P.2d 57\nCUSTOMWOOD MFG., INC., a New Mexico corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOWNEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 15490.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nNov. 20, 1984.\nRichard B. Addis, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellee.\nD. James Sorenson, Johnson & Lanphere, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0056-01", "first_page_order": 94, "last_page_order": 96 }