Indoor Billbd. / Northwest, Inc. v. TheLaundryList.com

An Oregon trial court may exercise personal jurisdiction “over a properly served defendant ‘[i]n any action claiming injury to person or property within this state arising out of an act or omission outside this state by the defendant,’ so long as, at the time the alleged injury occurred, the defendant either carried on ‘[s]olicitation or service activities … within this state,’ ORCP 4 D(1), or ‘[p]roducts, materials, or things distributed, processed, serviced, or manufactured by the defendant were used or consumed within this state in the ordinary course of trade,’ ORCP 4 D(2).”

Appellant appealed the trial court's default judgment for recession of contract and fraud against Appellant Supreme Linen Services, Inc. for delivering the wrong washing machine to Respondent. Appellant assigned error to the trial court's assertion of personal jurisdiction under ORCP 4 D, arguing that the default judgment should be declared void. An Oregon trial court may exercise personal jurisdiction “over a properly served defendant ‘[i]n any action claiming injury to person or property within this state arising out of an act or omission outside this state by the defendant,’ so long as, at the time the alleged injury occurred, the defendant either carried on ‘[s]olicitation or service activities … within this state,’ ORCP 4 D(1), or ‘[p]roducts, materials, or things distributed, processed, serviced, or manufactured by the defendant were used or consumed within this state in the ordinary course of trade,’ ORCP 4 D(2).” The Court reasoned that Respondent had not alleged or proven facts sufficient to demonstrate Appellant’s Oregon conduct qualified under either subsection of ORCP 4 D, and therefore, the trial court implicitly found that Defendant Laundry List--who did qualify for personal jurisdiction under ORCP 4 D--was acting on behalf of Appellant during the transaction. However, the Court further reasoned that while Appellant asserted that Laundry List “traditionally” acts a broker in this type of transaction for customers in Oregon, “[t]here was no direct evidence” that Laundry List acted as a broker for this transaction, such as “an agreement between [Appellant] and Laundry List.” Thus, the Court’s held the trial court’s “implicit finding that Laundry List was acting on behalf of [Appellant] was not supported by the evidence,” and that it did indeed err in concluding it had personal jurisdiction over Appellant. Reversed and remanded.