Personal jurisdiction; Yoost v Caspari; Whether the alleged business activities of one corporate entity could be attributed to another corporate entity; Limited personal jurisdiction under Michigan’s long-arm statute (MCL 600.715); “The transaction of any business within the state”; Oberlies v Searchmont Resort, Inc; Due process; Jeffrey v Rapid Am Corp; Burger King Corp v Rudzewicz; Starbrite Distrib, Inc v Excelda Mfg Co

In these consolidated appeals, the court held that defendants (collectively, Domtar) made out a prima facie case that third-party defendant-Terrico “engaged in the transaction of business within the state, and exercising limited personal jurisdiction over Terrico under the circumstances shown does not violate [its] right to due process.” Thus, it concluded the trial court erred in granting Terrico’s motions for summary disposition for lack of personal jurisdiction. The appeals concerned Domtar’s third-party claims for against Terrico “and specifically whether the trial court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Terrico, the Canadian corporation, to adjudicate those claims. Much of the dispute” here arose from two entities’ “nearly identical business names and the unclear identity of the entity Techni-Comp Environmental, which is listed on a majority of the documents detailing the alleged business activities at issue in the 1990s.” Central to the appeals was whether those alleged business activities “at issue can be attributed to Terrico, the Canadian corporation.” The court noted that “Domtar ‘need only present evidence sufficient to establish prima facie [its] jurisdictional claims notwithstanding the contrary presentation by the moving party.’” The evidence here included, among other things, “several pieces of correspondence detailing the composting business dealings in the 1990s listed the same Canadian address for Techni-Comp Environmental that Terrico currently uses, supporting a reasonable inference that Terrico operated as Techni-Comp Environmental during the relevant time period.” The court concluded that, relying “on the uncontroverted allegations, resolving factual disputes in Domtar’s favor, and viewing the evidence (including the identical Canadian addresses, previous Canadian business activities, and incorporation timeline) in a light most favorable to Domtar,” it made out “a prima facie case that Terrico operated as Techni-Comp Environmental at the time of the activities in question.” The court further concluded “the trial court had limited personal jurisdiction over Terrico under” MCL 600.715. Domtar’s evidence showed “Terrico sought out and negotiated with [defendant-]Eddy Paper to transact business at a Michigan composting site, secured conditional approval to establish the site from” a township, and notified the county “about the site development.” Finally, the court held that “the trial court erred by finding that the exercise of limited personal jurisdiction over Terrico was inconsistent with due process.” Reversed and remanded.