De Reyes v. Marine Mgt. and Consulting
586 So.2d 103, 1991 WL 173196 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a nonresident corporation maintains a continuous and systematic business presence in a state, such as a corporate office, due process permits that state to exercise general personal jurisdiction over the corporation for claims that do not arise from its in-state activities, unless the corporation can make a compelling case that exercising jurisdiction would be so unreasonable as to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Facts:
- Wallem Shipmanagement, Ltd. (Wallem), a Hong Kong corporation, provided worldwide ship management services.
- Wallem maintained a regional corporate office in New Orleans, Louisiana, staffed with four employees, to manage its operations in the Western Hemisphere.
- Wallem contracted with Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd. (MMC), a Louisiana corporation with an office in the same building, to recruit Honduran seamen for its vessels.
- Pursuant to this arrangement, Wallem, through MMC, employed Jorge Alberto Reyes, a Honduran seaman, to serve as a crew member on the M/V BRASSIE.
- While serving aboard the M/V BRASSIE in international waters off the coast of Oregon, Jorge Alberto Reyes was fatally asphyxiated.
Procedural Posture:
- Gladis Ondina Aguilera de Reyes sued Wallem Shipmanagement, Ltd. in a Louisiana district court (court of first instance).
- Wallem filed a declinatory exception (motion to dismiss) challenging the court's personal jurisdiction.
- The district court overruled the exception, finding jurisdiction was proper.
- Wallem applied for and was granted a supervisory writ by the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeal reversed the district court's ruling, sustained Wallem's exception, and found no personal jurisdiction.
- The plaintiff, Reyes, was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of Louisiana (highest state court) to review the appellate court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit a Louisiana court to exercise general personal jurisdiction over a non-resident corporation that maintains a corporate office and conducts continuous business in the state, in a lawsuit that does not arise from those specific in-state activities?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Dennis
Yes. The Due Process Clause permits a Louisiana court to exercise general personal jurisdiction because the defendant's continuous and systematic business activities within the state create a strong presumption of reasonableness that the defendant failed to rebut. The court applied the two-part test from specific jurisdiction cases to this general jurisdiction case. First, the court found that Wallem had purposefully established continuous and systematic contacts with Louisiana by maintaining a staffed corporate office for five years, from which it conducted a regular and vital part of its business for the entire Western Hemisphere. These contacts were more than sufficient to satisfy the first prong and created a strong presumption that jurisdiction was reasonable. Second, the burden shifted to Wallem to make a compelling case that exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable and offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The court concluded Wallem failed to meet this burden, finding that for a global enterprise like Wallem, defending a suit in New Orleans was not a constitutionally significant inconvenience, especially given modern transportation and communication. The court also weighed Louisiana's interest in regulating companies operating within its borders and the plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief in a U.S. forum, finding these factors supported the reasonableness of jurisdiction.
Dissenting - Justice Hall
No. The Due Process Clause does not permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction because it would not comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. While acknowledging that Wallem had continuous and systematic contacts with Louisiana, the dissent argued that the exercise of jurisdiction was fundamentally unreasonable. The analysis of fairness factors militated against jurisdiction: the burden on the Hong Kong-based defendant was great; Louisiana's interest in the litigation was minimal as none of the parties were residents and the accident was unrelated to Wallem's Louisiana activities; the plaintiff's interest in a Louisiana forum was slight, as it was not shown that Honduras was an unavailable forum; and international comity interests counseled against extending jurisdiction in such a case. The dissent distinguished the case from Perkins v. Benguet, noting that Wallem's Louisiana office conducted only a limited part of its business, not its entire general business, making the connection to the forum weaker and the assertion of jurisdiction for an unrelated claim unreasonable.
Analysis:
This case is significant for extending the two-part 'contacts and fairness' analysis, typically applied in specific jurisdiction cases, to the realm of general jurisdiction. It establishes that a defendant's maintenance of a physical corporate office and continuous business operations within a state creates a very strong presumption that jurisdiction is reasonable for any claim. This makes it difficult for a global corporation to defeat jurisdiction solely on grounds of inconvenience, thereby increasing the exposure of multinational companies to lawsuits in states where they maintain regional offices, even for causes of action arising elsewhere in the world. The decision reinforces the principle that a corporation that purposefully avails itself of the benefits of a state's laws and economy must also accept the burden of litigation there.
