Case: Guffey v. Ostonakulov, (Okla. Sup. Ct. 2014)

Oklahoma resident Samantha Guffey purchased a used 2009 Volvo XC90 (Volvo) from Odil Ostonakulov and Motorcars of Nashville, Inc. (MNI). Ostonakulov resides in Tennessee. MNI is

a Tennessee corporation with its principal place of business in Nashville, Tennessee. Ostonakulov and MNI operate a used car lot in Nashville. The sale occurred after Guffey was the winning

bidder for the car in an auction by MNI on eBay. After receiving the Volvo, Guffey determined that it was not in the condition advertised. She later sued Ostonakulvo and MNI in an Oklahoma

state trial court for alleged fraud and alleged violations of an Oklahoma consumer protection law. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction. In an affidavit Guffey

provided for the court as it considered the defendants' jurisdiction objection, Guffey stated that she bid on the Volvo listed on eBay based, in part, on the representation of a 30-day limited

warranty on the car. The affidavit also stated that after she submitted her bid, but several days before the closing date of the auction, she received an e-mail solicitation from Ostonakulov

suggesting that she contact him by phone and negotiate a buy-it-now price for the vehicle. She chose not to do so, but only after calling and speaking with him personally about the matter.

After Gulley learned that she had won the auction with the highest bid, she had her father call and speak to Ostonakulov about final details and payment instructions. Ostonakulov mailed a

purchase agreement to Gulley's father's office in Oklahoma City. Gulley signed the agreement and returned it to Tennessee. Ostonakulov also helped to arrange shipping of the vehicle to

Oklahoma, where Guffey took delivery. According to Guffey's affidavit, the eBay sale to her was not an isolated transaction for the defendants, and that they have between 12 and 35 cars

listed for sale every day on eBay. The affidavit also asserted that the defendants had sold at least three cars in Oklahoma and that they have sold more than 30 cars to Oklahoma residents.

Oklahoma has a long-arm statute that applies to the full extent permitted by due process principles. The Oklahoma trial court dismissed the case after concluding that it did not have

in personam jurisdiction over the defendants. Guffey appealed to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

TRUE/FALSE QUESTIONS

1. Oklahoma courts have in rem jurisdiction over the Tennessee defendants under Oklahomas long-arm statute, because Ostonakulov and MNI have had sufficient substantive contacts with Guffrey in effecting her purchase of the Volvo and with more than 30 Oklahoma residents who purchases cars from Ostonakulov and MNI. T/F

2. The Oklahoma state trial court in which Guffey initiated her lawsuit against Ostonakulov and MNI is likely a court of limited jurisdiction. T/F

3. The Oklahoma trial court in which Guffey initiated her lawsuit against MNI and the federal district court in Oklahoma have concurrent jurisdiction to adjudicate Guffreys claim against MNI. T/F

4. It is highly unlikely that the purchase agreement for the Volvo had either an arbitration provision or a forum selection clause. T/F

5. Even though the lawsuit between Guffrey and Ostonakulov and MNI is still at the pleadings stage, both Guffrey and Ostonakulov and MNI are permitted to pursue discovery through the use of interrogatories, requests for admissions, depositions, and request for production of documents in order to advance and complete the pleadings. T/F