United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 03-2422
___________
Beverly Anderson, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the Eastern
* District of Arkansas.
Dassault Aviation, *
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: January 16, 2004
Filed: March 4, 2004
___________
Before WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit
Judges.
___________
MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
This is a product liability suit brought by Beverly Anderson, a Michigan
resident, to recover for injuries that she suffered while working as a flight attendant
on a Dassault Falcon business jet owned by her employer, Amway Corporation. The
jet was on its descent into a Michigan airport when it underwent a series of pitch
oscillations, allegedly buffeting Ms. Anderson about in the aircraft and causing her
injuries. The jet was manufactured in France by Dassault Aviation, a French
corporation. Business jets manufactured by Dassault Aviation, which account for the
majority of the company's revenue, are sold under the trade name Falcon, and are
exclusively sold and leased in the western hemisphere by Dassault Falcon Jet
Corporation, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Dassault Aviation. (Dassault
Aviation and various of its subsidiaries, including Dassault Falcon Jet, are known
collectively as Dassault Aviation Group.) Dassault Falcon Jet bought the jet on
which Ms. Anderson was injured from Dassault Aviation in France, and then flew the
jet to Little Rock, Arkansas, where it completed the jet and sold and delivered it to
Amway.
Ms. Anderson initially filed suit in the Western District of Michigan against
Dassault Aviation, Dassault Falcon Jet, and Honeywell, Inc. (which manufactured the
autopilot in the jet). The Michigan district court granted Dassault Aviation's motion
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, leaving Ms. Anderson's action against
Honeywell and Dassault Falcon Jet pending there. Ms. Anderson then re-filed the
suit against Dassault Aviation in the Eastern District of Arkansas. The Arkansas
district court granted Dassault Aviation's motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, from which Ms. Anderson now appeals. We review the dismissal for
lack of personal jurisdiction de novo. See Barone v. Rich Bros. Interstate Display
Fireworks Co., 25 F.3d 610, 612 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 948 (1994).
Because we conclude that Dassault Aviation has sufficient contacts with Arkansas to
subject it to personal jurisdiction there consistent with due process, we reverse.
I.
In a diversity action, a federal court may assume jurisdiction over a nonresident
defendant only if the requirements of the forum state's long-arm statute are satisfied
and the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process. See Burlington Indus.,
Inc. v. Maples Indus., Inc., 97 F.3d 1100, 1102 (8th Cir. 1996). Arkansas's long-arm
statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-4-101, gives the state's courts personal jurisdiction over
persons and claims "to the maximum extent permitted by the due process of law
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution." The only
-2-
issue in this appeal is thus whether the due process clause permits an Arkansas court's
assertion of personal jurisdiction over Dassault Aviation.
In order for an Arkansas court to assert personal jurisdiction over Dassault
Aviation consistent with due process, Dassault Aviation must "have certain minimum
contacts" with Arkansas "such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend