5 P.3d 697 (2001)

Richard RAYMOND, a single person, Appellant,

v.

Jack ROBINSON and Susan Robinson, husband and wife, d/b/a R.V. Interiors and/or R.V. Interiors, Inc., and R.V. Interiors, Inc., a foreign corporation, Respondents.

No. 25248-1-II.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.

January 12, 2001.

699*699 Timothy R. Gosselin, Burgess Fitzer Leighton, Tacoma, for Respondents.

Thomas Joseph West, Krilich La Porte West, Tacoma; Mellani R Highes, Krilich La Porte West & Lockner Ps, Olympia, for Appellant.

698*698 SEINFELD, J.

Richard Raymond, a Washington resident, appeals the trial court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction of his suit against Jack and Susan Robinson, doing business as R.V. Interiors (RVI). Finding jurisdiction under the long-arm statute, RCW 4.28.185, we reverse.

FACTS

The underlying facts of this case are not in dispute. RVI is an Arizona business that installs recreational vehicle accessories. RVI does not have any offices or agents in Washington State.

RVI advertises in four national magazines that reach this state. Between 1994 and 1999, RVI sold approximately 96 slide-out units, 9 to Washington residents.[1] During this same period, approximately 150 Washington residents contacted RVI, although not all of these contacts resulted in a sale. It is unclear from the record exactly how many of these sales or contacts resulted from RVI's advertisements.

All the slide-out units that RVI sold in Washington were manufactured in Arizona, and RVI performs all of its installations and most of its repairs and adjustments in Arizona. But occasionally RVI authorizes warranty repair work in the customer's home state.

Raymond, a Washington resident, contacted RVI after seeing one of its advertisements in a national magazine. After receiving brochures and a list of previous Washington customers from RVI and discussing terms by telephone and by letter, Raymond purchased a slide-out unit from RVI. Raymond drove his recreational vehicle (RV) to Arizona where RVI installed the slide-out. The slide-out came with a one-year limited warranty, which required the performance of all warranty work in Arizona.

Shortly after RVI installed the slide-out, Raymond began to experience problems with it. Raymond took his RV to Arizona for repairs once. Later, RVI authorized additional repairs and adjustments in Washington and South Dakota and sent a technician from Arizona to Washington to address the problems. RVI also orally agreed to extend Raymond's warranty. Later RVI determined that the slide-out was operating properly and refused to pay for any further repairs or adjustments.

Raymond sued RVI, alleging breach of written or oral agreements; negligent or unworkmanlike manufacture, installation, and repair; breach of express or implied warranty; and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. RVI moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court granted RVI's motion.

I. Standard of Review and Burden of Proof

Please describe in a few sentences the material facts of the case.Who are the people involved?Why are they mad at each other?What facts led to them being in court together?Are there any other important facts relevant to the judicial resolution of this case?Use layman terms and paraphrase so someone who doesn't know law can understand.

In law school, students "brief" cases.A brief is a summary of a judicial opinion, or case, that is organized into 5 sections:Facts, Procedural Posture, Issue, Holding and Reasoning.Th essay answer here would be like the "Facts" section in a brief.

In a common law system, judges and lawyers try to "find" the law by looking at precedent and analogous (similar) factual cases.Cases will be decided based on the facts.In my opinion, collecting and proving facts is the most important part of being a litigator.

This case is a great example of how the facts are important because you can see the parties arguing how different cases are factually analogous, and therefore binding precedent, that should control their case.