Shoppers Food Warehouse v. Moreno
2000 D.C. App. LEXIS 43, 746 A.2d 320, 2000 WL 197559 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A nonresident corporation's extensive and purposeful advertising in a forum jurisdiction, coupled with the proximity of its stores, constitutes transacting business under D.C.'s long-arm statute, allowing the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over a personal injury claim by a forum resident that has a discernible relationship to such advertising, consistent with due process.
Facts:
- Shoppers Food Warehouse, a Maryland corporation, owns numerous grocery stores in Maryland and Virginia, several located within a few miles of the District of Columbia border.
- Shoppers placed extensive weekly advertisements, often large and illustrated, in The Washington Post, a major District of Columbia newspaper, from at least October 1 through December 1, 1993, including the week of November 20, 1993.
- These advertisements listed the addresses of Shoppers' Maryland and Virginia stores, offered shopping incentives (e.g., ticket contests, free Thanksgiving items), and included the bold caption: 'No Matter Where You Live ... It’s Worth The Drive!'
- Shoppers also placed advertisements on television networks in the District and listed one of its stores in the District of Columbia Yellow Pages in 1993-94.
- On November 20, 1993, Asuncion Moreno, a District of Columbia resident, slipped and fell on okra and sustained back and hand injuries while Thanksgiving shopping at a Shoppers store in Takoma Park, Maryland, within two miles of her home.
- Ms. Moreno did not claim to have seen the specific Thanksgiving advertisement mentioned by the court.
Procedural Posture:
- Asuncion Moreno sued Shoppers Food Warehouse in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for negligence.
- Shoppers Food Warehouse argued that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction.
- The motions court initially found no jurisdiction under D.C.Code § 13-423(a)(4) (tortious injury in D.C.) but concluded it had personal jurisdiction under § 13-423(a)(1) (transacting business).
- A District of Columbia jury found Shoppers Food Warehouse negligent and awarded Ms. Moreno damages.
- Shoppers Food Warehouse appealed the judgment.
- A majority panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding jurisdiction in Moreno I.
- The panel's opinion was vacated, and Shoppers' petition for rehearing en banc was granted by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
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 a nonresident grocery store chain's extensive advertising in a major District of Columbia newspaper, soliciting District residents to its nearby Maryland and Virginia stores, establish sufficient minimum contacts and a 'discernible relationship' to a District resident's slip-and-fall injury in one of those Maryland stores, thereby allowing a D.C. court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction consistent with D.C.Code § 13-423(a)(1) and (b) and the Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Reid, Associate Judge
Yes, the trial court properly exercised personal jurisdiction over Shoppers Food Warehouse because the corporation, through its extensive advertising in a major District of Columbia newspaper, purposefully solicited District residents as customers for its nearby Maryland and Virginia stores, thereby transacting business in the District. Furthermore, Ms. Moreno's personal injury claim had a discernible relationship to this advertising, making it reasonably foreseeable for Shoppers to anticipate being sued in a D.C. court by a District resident. The court reasoned that D.C.Code § 13-423(a)(1) and (b) should be interpreted coextensively with the Due Process Clause, requiring 'minimum contacts' that reflect 'fair play and substantial justice.' Shoppers' continuous and deliberate advertising created purposeful availment of the D.C. market and was not random or fortuitous. The court affirmed a flexible interpretation of the 'arising from' language in § 13-423(b) as synonymous with 'relate to' or 'substantial connection with,' rejecting stricter 'but for' or 'proximate cause' tests. It emphasized that the District has a manifest interest in providing a convenient forum for its residents to redress injuries caused by out-of-state actors who avail themselves of the District's benefits. The relationship between Shoppers' advertising and Ms. Moreno's injury was 'discernible' because the advertising aimed to draw D.C. residents to the stores where such injuries could occur.
Dissenting - Wagner, Chief Judge
No, the court does not have personal jurisdiction because the claim is unrelated to the business transacted in the District by Shoppers Food Warehouse, as required by D.C.Code § 13-423(b). Chief Judge Wagner argued that while Shoppers' advertisements might meet the 'transacting business' requirement of § 13-423(a)(1), the 'arising from' limitation in § 13-423(b) requires a claim to have a 'discernible relationship' to the specific business transaction that provides the basis for jurisdiction. She contended that Ms. Moreno's slip-and-fall injury, occurring in Maryland due to Shoppers' alleged negligence in Maryland, had no relationship to Shoppers' advertising activities in the District. To hold otherwise, she reasoned, would render the statutory limitation in § 13-423(b) meaningless, extending jurisdiction beyond the bounds intended by the statute and the due process clause for claims wholly unrelated to the in-District activities.
Dissenting - Schwelb, Associate Judge
No, Ms. Moreno failed to establish that her claim 'arose from' Shoppers' contacts with the District of Columbia, as required by D.C.Code § 13-423(b). Judge Schwelb reiterated his position from the prior panel decision, emphasizing that Ms. Moreno would have suffered her injuries even if Shoppers had not advertised in the District, suggesting a lack of a causal connection. He noted that the legislative history indicates D.C.'s long-arm statute was intended to be equivalent to Maryland and Virginia statutes, which generally require a stronger causal link (akin to legal or proximate causation, rather than mere 'but for' causation) for the 'arising from' phrase. He critiqued the majority's reliance on Connecticut and California cases, arguing that those states' long-arm statutes differ significantly from D.C.'s by either not requiring a causal connection or lacking an 'arising from' clause altogether. He concluded that the common sense meaning of 'arising from' implies a causal link not present in this case, especially since Ms. Moreno did not even claim to have seen the ads.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of specific personal jurisdiction under the D.C. long-arm statute, particularly concerning out-of-state torts related to in-forum advertising. By adopting a flexible 'discernible relationship' test for the 'arising from' requirement of § 13-423(b), the D.C. Court of Appeals broadened the reach of its courts, moving away from stricter causation-based interpretations. The decision confirms that purposeful advertising, especially in a closely integrated metropolitan area like D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, can establish minimum contacts for specific jurisdiction even if the injury occurs outside the forum, as long as the claim relates to the marketing efforts. This precedent is crucial for businesses operating across jurisdictional borders within a single economic region, as it implies a greater likelihood of being haled into court in the forum where they solicit customers, even for out-of-state injuries.
