ÿWPC, …# VU>a %Ÿ 0(¥4Íáðw@ø 0L8 0J„ 0TÎ 0^" 0h€ 0rè 0|Z 0†Ö 0\ 1uì U,a 0d U,ñ U6B)SDC| 0N¿ B  AM*U*w"¡v~à D3AvÓt 0@G AO‡ÆÖ 0Dœ D/à B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX($¡¡DÒ x°°3|xE  3 E4 5 E6 7 D8 E9 : Qe; Ó€E > ÿÿ$Small Circleððà0 à2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd>‡¦$"Small Circleð"ðà0  à d€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌJuly€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`%%%%'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÓ ` Ü‚Xœ ’X ÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€ÞXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑœJOHN›€RUSSELL€WALKER€andà à)ÌSHARON€DENISON€WALKER,à à)Ìà àà à)ÌÓ#` Ü‚Xœôx‘X#Óà àPlaintiffs/Appellees,à à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà à)à à01„A„01„9603„CV„00094Ìv.à àà à)Ìà àà à)à àÌVLD,€INC.,€d/b/a€McDONALD'S,à à)ÌB.F.€MYERS€FURNITURE€andà à)à àSumner€CircuitÌAPPLIANCE€COMPANY,€INC.,€à à)à àNo.€13917„CÌÙ€€ÙœßL€&(#;+'h|k` ç `€€Lß›SK€PRODUCTS€CORP.,€GL€FURNITUREà à)Ì(PAHANG)€SDN.€BHD.,€GENERALà à)ÌLUMBER€FURNITURE€SDN.€BHN.,à à)ÌMcDONALD'S€CORPORATION,€EM„CARà à)ÌENTERPRISES€AND€LANG€FURNITUREà à)Ì(PAHANG)€SDN.€BHD.,à à)Ìà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à à)ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€!¼ÔCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€SUMNER€COUNTYÌÌAT€GALLATIN,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€THOMAS€GOODALL,€JUDGEÌÓ ` Ü‚XœÈ“X ÓÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÔ€!XÔRICHARD€BARANYIÌP.€O.€Box€2183ÌHendersonville,€Tennessee€€37075Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEESÌÌÌÌKATHERINE€A.€BROWNÌBaker,€Donelson,€BearmanÌ€€&€CaldwellÌ1700€Nashville€City€CenterÌ511€Union€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37219Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTSÌà àGL€FURNITURE€(PAHANG)€SDN.€BHD.€ANDÌà àGENERAL€LUMBER€FURNITURE€SDN.€BHN.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€!¼ÔSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòÔ€!°ÔOÔ€!¼Ô€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÓ  ÓÓ#` Ü` ä œÈ“X#ÓóóÔ€!XÔà àWe€granted€permission€to€appeal€pursuant€to€Tennessee€RuleÏof€Appellate€Procedure€9€to€determine€whether€the€trial€courtÏcorrectly€held€that€defendants/appellants,€GL€Furniture€(Pahang)ÏSdn.€Bhd.€("GL€Furniture")€and€General€Lumber€Furniture€Sdn.€Bhn.Ï("GLFSB"),€were€properly€served€with€process€and€were€properlyÏbefore€the€trial€court.€€The€facts€out€of€which€this€case€aroseÏare€as€follows.ÌÌà àOn€20€June€1994,€appellee€John€Walker€was€sitting€on€aÏchair€while€a€customer€at€a€McDonald's€restaurant€in€Gallatin,ÏTennessee.€€A€leg€of€the€chair€broke€causing€him€to€fall€andÏinjure€his€back.€€On€1€March€1995,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Walker€filed€aÏcomplaint€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Gallatin,€Tennessee.€€AppelleesÏalleged€multiple€theories€of€negligence.€€They€also€alleged€thatÏthe€McDonald's€franchisee€purchased€the€chair€from€a€localÏfurniture€store,€B.F.€Myers;€that€B.F.€Myers€purchased€the€chairÍfrom€a€wholesaler,€SK€Products€Corporation€("SK");€and€that€SKÏpurchased€the€chair€from€the€manufacturer,€GL€Furniture.ÌÌà àThe€undisputed€facts€show€that€appellants€are€MalaysianÏcorporations.€€They€are€completely€separate€corporations,€but€areÏwholly€owned€subsidiaries€of€Land€&€General€Berhad,€anotherÏMalaysian€corporation.€€Appellants€manufacture€unassembled,€woodenÏfurniture€which€they€sell€to€purchasers€who€later€assemble€theÏfurniture.€€Appellants€do€not€have€any€office€employees€or€bankÏaccounts€in€Tennessee€or€in€any€other€state€in€the€United€States.€ÏMoreover,€they€do€not€do€any€business€in€Tennessee€and€do€not€haveÏany€subsidiaries€in€the€United€States.ÌÌà àGL€Furniture€manufactured€the€chair€and€sold€it€unassembledÏto€SK.€€The€chair€was€among€many€chairs€shipped€by€GL€Furniture€toÏSK€in€three€different€batches.€€GL€Furniture€shipped€the€chairsÏfrom€Malaysia€to€a€port€in€Charleston,€South€Carolina.€€FromÏthere,€it€delivered€them€to€SK€in€Atlanta,€Georgia.€€Although€GLÏFurniture€has€sold€other€shipments€of€unassembled€furniture€to€SK,Ïthe€corporations€are€separate,€unrelated,€and€do€not€share€anyÏcommon€owners€or€offices.€€GL€Furniture€does€not€hold€SK€out€asÏits€agent€and€there€is€no€distributorship€agreement€existingÏbetween€the€two€companies.€€Appellants€do€not€have€any€controlÏover€SK's€sales€activities.€€There€is€no€proof€in€the€record€thatÏappellants€directed€SK€to€sell€the€chairs€in€Tennessee€or€thatÏthey€participated€in€any€decision€made€by€any€entity€to€sell€theÍchairs€in€Tennessee.ÌÌà àAppellees€contend€that€because€some€of€the€fifty€chairsÏmanufactured€by€GL€Furniture€"for€some€reason€ended€up€inÏTennessee"€there€were€a€sufficient€number€of€contracts€to€justifyÏhailing€appellants€into€Tennessee's€courts.€€In€other€words,Ïappellees€argue€that€Tennessee's€courts€have€jurisdiction€becauseÏappellants€put€the€wooden€chair€parts€into€the€stream€of€commerceÏand€because€the€parts€ultimately€ended€up€in€Tennessee.€ÌÌà àAppellants'€first€contention€is€that€the€trial€court€erredÏin€holding€that€it€was€justified€in€exercising€in€personamÏjurisdiction€over€appellants.€€In€support€of€their€contention,Ïthey€argue€that€the€exercise€of€in€personam€jurisdiction€over€themÏdoes€not€comport€with€the€due€process€clause€of€the€FourteenthÏAmendment.€€It€is€their€insistence€that€they€do€not€haveÏsufficient€minimum€contact€with€the€State€of€Tennessee€necessaryÏto€subject€them€to€the€in€personam€jurisdiction€of€Tennessee'sÏcourts.€€Appellants€correctly€argue€that€the€only€basis€set€forthÏby€the€plaintiffs€to€justify€the€exercise€of€jurisdiction€is€thatÏa€chair€manufactured€by€GL€Furniture€was€placed€into€the€stream€ofÏcommerce€and,€through€no€direction€of€appellants,€ended€up€inÏTennessee.€€Ìà àÌà àTennessee's€long„arm€statute€provides,€in€pertinent€part,Ïas€follows:€ÌÓÓà8 à(a)€Persons€who€are€nonresidents€of€Tennessee€.€.€Ï.€are€subject€to€the€jurisdiction€of€the€courts€ofÏthis€state€as€to€any€action€or€claim€for€reliefÏarising€from:€ÌÓ&` Ü` ä <œÈ“X&Óà àà à.€.€.€.ÌÓ#` Üä ‚XœÈ“X#Óà8 àà0 à(2)€Any€tortious€act€or€omission€within€thisÏstate;Ìà àà à.€.€.€.Ìà8 àà0 à(6)€Any€basis€not€inconsistent€with€theÏconstitution€of€this€state€or€of€the€UnitedÏStates.€€ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„2„214(a)(2)€&€(6)(1994).€€ÓÓAs€can€be€readilyÏseen,€courts€of€Tennessee€may€exercise€in€personam€jurisdictionÏover€non„residents€only€if€the€exercise€of€such€jurisdiction€isÏnot€inconsistent€with€due€process.€€Summarizing€previous€decisionsÏof€the€United€States€Supreme€Court,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏdefined€the€boundaries€of€due€process€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àIn€determining€whether€or€not€a€state€can€assertÏlong€arm€jurisdiction,€due€process€requires€that€aÏnon„resident€defendant€be€subjected€to€a€judgmentÏin€personam€only€if€he€has€minimum€contacts€withÏthe€forum€such€that€"the€maintenance€of€the€suitÏdoes€not€offend€'traditional€notions€of€fair€playÏand€substantial€justice.'"€(citation€omitted).€.€.Ï.€The€absence€of€physical€contacts€will€not€defeatÏin€personam€jurisdiction€where€a€commercial€actorÏpurposefully€directs€his€activities€towardsÏcitizens€of€the€forum€state€and€litigation€resultsÏfrom€injuries€arising€out€of€or€relating€to€thoseÏactivities.€(citation€omitted).€€In€such€a€case,Ïthe€defendant's€conduct€and€connection€with€theÏforum€state€are€such€that€he€would€reasonablyÏanticipate€being€hailed€into€court€there.€ÌÌÓÓò òòòMasada€Inv.€Co.€v.€Allen,€ó óóó697€S.W.2d€332,€334€(Tenn.Ï1985)(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àThe€facts€of€an€often€quoted€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏopinion€are€very€similar€to€the€instant€case.€€òòò òAsahi€MetalÍIndus.€Co.€Ltd.€v.€Superior€Court€of€California€SolanoÏCountyó óóó,€480€U.S.€102,€107€€S.€Ct.€1026,€94€L.€Ed.€2d€92€(1987).€ÏAsahi€was€a€Japanese€corporation€which€manufactured€tire€valveÏassemblies€in€Japan.€€The€company€€sold€the€valves€to€a€TaiwaneseÏcorporation.€€The€Taiwanese€corporation€incorporated€the€valvesÏinto€tire€tubes€and€sold€the€tire€tubes€all€over€the€world.€€òòò òId.Ïóóó óat€1029.€€One€of€these€tubes€became€the€subject€of€a€productsÏliability€suit€in€California.€€The€case€eventually€made€it€to€theÏUnited€States€Supreme€Court.€€In€its€decision,€the€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€"substantial€connection"€between€the€defendantÏand€the€forum€State€necessary€for€a€finding€ofÏminimum€contacts€must€come€about€by€òòan€action€ofÏthe€defendant€purposefully€directed€toward€theÏforum€State.óó€€The€placement€of€a€product€into€theÏstream€of€commerce,€without€more,€is€not€an€act€ofÏthe€defendant€purposefully€directed€toward€theÏforum€State.€€Additional€conduct€of€the€defendantÏmay€indicate€an€intent€or€purpose€to€serve€theÏmarket€in€the€forum€State€.€.€.€[b]ut€a€defendant'sÏawareness€that€the€stream€of€commerce€may€or€willÏsweep€the€product€into€the€forum€State€does€notÏconvert€the€mere€act€of€placing€the€product€intoÏthe€stream€into€an€act€purposefully€directed€towardÏthe€forum€State.ÌÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€1032€(citations€omitted).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àBecause€Asahi€did€not€do€business€in€California;€had€noÏoffices,€agents,€employees,€or€property€in€California;€did€notÏadvertise€or€otherwise€solicit€business€in€California;€and€did€notÏcreate,€control,€or€employee€the€distribution€system€that€broughtÏits€valves€to€California,€there€was€no€showing€that€itÏpurposefully€availed€itself€to€the€California€market.€€Therefore,Ïthe€courts€of€California€could€not€exercise€personal€jurisdictionÍover€Asahi€without€exceeding€the€limits€of€due€process.ÌÌà àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€appellants€did€not€have€theÏnecessary€minimum€contacts€with€Tennessee€to€constitutionallyÏjustify€the€exercise€of€in€personam€jurisdiction€by€Tennessee'sÏcourts.€€Under€Tennessee€law,€the€minimum€contacts€test€consistsÏof€two€parts.€€First,€the€court€must€identify€the€nature€andÏextent€of€the€contacts€between€the€defendant€and€the€State€ofÏTennessee.€€Second,€the€court€must€"determine€whether€exercisingÏpersonal€jurisdiction€based€on€these€contacts€is€consistent€withÏtraditional€notions€of€fair€play€and€substantial€justice."€€ò òòòDavisÏKidd€Booksellers,€Inc.€v.€Day„Impex,€Ltd.ó óóó,€832€S.W.2d€572,Ï575€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€The€plaintiff€has€the€burden€of€making€outÏa€prima€facie€case€that€exercising€personal€jurisdiction€under€theÏlong€arm€statute€over€the€defendants€is€proper.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€577.€ÏAppellants€contend€that€appellees€failed€to€carry€their€burden€ofÏproof€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€the€motion€toÏdismiss.€€We€agree.€€Because€of€our€holding€as€to€this€issue,€weÏdo€not€determine€whether€appellees€properly€served€appellants.ÌÌà àTherefore,€it€results€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏoverruling€the€defendants'€motion€to€dismiss€is€reversed.€€TheÏcause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€the€entry€of€an€orderÏsustaining€defendants€motion€to€dismiss€and€for€any€furtherÏnecessary€proceedings.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÏplaintiffs/appellees,€John€Russell€Walker€and€Sharon€DenisonÍWalker,€and€their€sureties.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ