Tenth Circuit -- Monge v. RG Petro-Machinery

Equipment built & purchased in China, purchased by a company in one state, consigned to a company in another state, then moved to a third state by the consigneee.  Where it injured someone.

No error in summary judgement holding that no reasonable factfinder could find that defeat of safety device created a knowing substantial certainty of injury.

Summary judgement on this didn't require any findings of causation reserved to the jury.

Where deponent delays in certifying the deposition, the late-filed deposition is not a grounds for a motion to alter or amend the verdict based on new evidence, as the party could have asked the court to delay the summary judgement motion until after the deposition was properly entered.

No personal jurisdiction over Chinese manufacturer, as the equipment ended up in the forum state due to the actions of a third party.  Scattered phone contacts, emails and visits not enough to overwhelm.  Stream of commerce analysis still requires purposeful direction.  Contacts with forum state insufficient for general jurisdiction.


Monge v. RG Petro-Machinery