Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 34380 RHINO METALS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOWARD CRAFT, an individual; H&S HUNTING, Defendants-Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Boise, September 2008 Term 2008 Opinion No. 109 Filed: September 24, 2008 Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for Canyon County. The Hon. Renae J. Hoff, District Judge. The judgment of the district court is vacated. Charney & Associates, PLLC, Eagle, for appellant. Jacob D. Deaton argued. Brassey, Wetherell, Crawford & Garrett, Boise, for respondents. Richardson argued. Bradley S.

EISMANN, Chief Justice. This is an appeal from an order dismissing the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. We hold that the defendants made a general appearance by filing a motion to strike the plaintiff's amended complaint, and therefore vacate the judgment dismissing this action. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Howard Craft (Craft) is co-owner of H&S Hunting, a store located in Elizabethton, Tennessee. Rhino Metals, Inc. (Rhino) manufactures gun safes. In February 2006, Rhino contacted Craft at a Wild Turkey Convention in Nashville, Tennessee. Craft subsequently executed in Tennessee an agreement to purchase gun safes from Rhino. When the gun safes arrived at H&S Hunting in Tennessee, Craft rejected them, contending that they had scratches and/or dents or were otherwise nonconforming. On January 30, 2007, Rhino filed this action in Idaho against Craft and H&S Hunting (collectively called Craft). On March 12, 2007, Craft filed a special appearance. On March 22,

2007, he filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and noticed the motion for hearing. Before the hearing on the motion, Rhino filed an amended complaint to add a count alleging fraud and to demand an accounting. In response, Craft filed a motion to strike the amended complaint. The motion stated that the amended complaint should be stricken because Rhino had failed to obtain leave of court before filing the amended complaint, the count for fraud failed to allege all of the elements of fraud, and the demand for an accounting failed to allege that Rhino had demanded an accounting before filing this action. The district court heard Craft's motion to dismiss on April 26, 2007. At that hearing, Rhino argued that by filing the motion to strike, Craft had made a general appearance in the action and was therefore subject to personal jurisdiction. The court rejected that argument and granted Craft's motion to dismiss. Rhino filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied. Rhino then timely appealed.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL 1. Did Craft's motion to strike the amended complaint constitute a general appearance? 2. Is Craft entitled to an award of attorney fees on appeal pursuant to either Idaho Code

Download rhino34380.pdf

Idaho Law