DeJames v. Magnificence Carriers, Inc.
491 F. Supp. 1276, 1981 A.M.C. 2124, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17186 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When service of process on an out-of-state defendant in a federal question case is made pursuant to a state long-arm statute, the federal court's personal jurisdiction analysis is limited to the defendant's minimum contacts with the forum state, not its aggregate contacts with the United States as a whole.
Facts:
- Hitachi Shipbuilding and Engineering Company, Ltd. (Hitachi), a Japanese corporation, contracted in Japan to convert the vessel M. V. Magnificence Venture into an automobile carrier.
- Hitachi performed all conversion work on the vessel at its shipyard in Japan.
- Hitachi had no further contact or involvement with the vessel after it departed from Osaka, Japan.
- Hitachi does not maintain an office, have an agent, or transact any business in the state of New Jersey.
- The vessel M. V. Magnificence Venture later moored at a pier in Camden, New Jersey.
- Joseph DeJames, a New Jersey citizen, was working aboard the vessel in Camden when he suffered personal injuries.
- DeJames alleged that his injuries were a direct result of defective conversion work performed by Hitachi in Japan.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph DeJames filed suit against Hitachi Shipbuilding and Engineering Company, Ltd. in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under the court's admiralty jurisdiction.
- Hitachi filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against it for insufficiency of service of process and for lack of in personam jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a federal admiralty case, does a federal court have personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation that lacks minimum contacts with the forum state, based on the corporation's aggregate national contacts, when service of process is effected through the forum state's long-arm statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Cohen, Senior Judge
No. When service of process is made under a state long-arm statute as authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e), a federal court's jurisdictional inquiry is limited by that state's law, which requires an analysis of the defendant's minimum contacts with the forum state, not the nation as a whole. First, the court found that Hitachi's contacts with New Jersey were insufficient to satisfy the 'minimum contacts' standard established in International Shoe. Hitachi did no business in New Jersey, had no office or agent there, and did not 'purposely avail' itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the state. The court rejected the 'stream of commerce' argument, distinguishing this case from those where manufacturers use a distributive scheme to market products in the forum state, and citing World-Wide Volkswagen for the principle that the mere foreseeability that a product will find its way into the forum is not enough. Second, the court rejected the plaintiff's 'national contacts' theory. While acknowledging the policy arguments for aggregating a foreign defendant's contacts with the United States in federal question cases, the court held that the method of service is determinative. Because service was effected through New Jersey's long-arm statute under Rule 4(e), the court was bound to apply the jurisdictional limitations of that statute, which are constrained by the Fourteenth Amendment's due process requirements. Therefore, the inquiry was properly limited to Hitachi's contacts with New Jersey. The court noted this holding is limited to cases where service is made via state statutes and that a national contacts analysis might be permissible if Congress had authorized nationwide service of process for admiralty claims.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of the 'national contacts' theory of personal jurisdiction in federal question cases. It establishes that the procedural mechanism for service of process dictates the breadth of the jurisdictional analysis. By holding that reliance on a state long-arm statute imports that state's jurisdictional limitations, the decision prevents federal courts from aggregating a defendant's nationwide contacts in the absence of a federal statute authorizing nationwide service. This ruling reinforces the significance of the 'purposeful availment' requirement and limits the jurisdictional reach over foreign corporations in states where they have no direct or indirect business presence, impacting how plaintiffs structure litigation against such entities.
