METAL FLOW CORP V ECONOMY PRODUCTS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
METAL FLOW CORPORATION,
UNPUBLISHED
November 25, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
ECONOMY PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC, and
TONY DIVARMO,
No. 195525
Ottawa Circuit Court
LC No. 95-024394 CK
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Young, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the summary dismissal of its contract action on the ground of a
lack of limited personal jurisdiction, MCR 2.116(C)(1). We affirm. This case is being decided without
oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The State of Michigan may exercise limited personal jurisdiction under its long-arm statute if two
prerequisites are established. First, the rules of statutory construction must support the exercise of
jurisdiction over the defendant. Second, the exercise of limited personal jurisdiction may not violate the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Starbrite Distributing, Inc v Excelda Mfg Co,
454 Mich 302, 304; 562 NW2d 640 (1997).
Plaintiff has failed to show that subsection 5 of the Michigan long-arm statute, MCL
600.715(5); MSA 27A.715(5), supports the exercise of jurisdiction over defendants because there was
no showing that the contract entered into was “for services to be performed or for material to be
furnished in the state by the defendant.” (Italics added). Instead, the record reveals that the contract
was for services to be performed in Michigan by plaintiff and for material to be furnished in the states of
Missouri and Tennessee by plaintiff. Starbrite, supra, pp 306-308.
Affirmed.
-1
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
