Burhnam v. Superior Court (1990) (transient Jx when visiting his kids)

a.       Facts- Π and Δ were married. They then separated, but couldn’t agree on the terms of the divorce (reason for divorce). Children lived with Π in CA while Δ lived in NJ. While on a business trip in CA, Δ visited his children. Shortly thereafter, Δ was served in CA. Δ argues that Jx is not proper in CA because of the nature of Δ’s visit.

b.      Procedural History- Superior Ct denied motion to quash based on Jx question, Cal. Ct of appeals affirmed. U.S. Sup Ct affirmed

c.       Issue- Whether Due Process requires a connection between the subject matter and the Δ’s contacts with the forum State, where the Δ is physically present at the time process is served upon him

d.      Holding- No, Due Process does NOT require the suit’s subject matter to be related to the Δ’s contacts with the forum State when the Δ is served while physically present in forum State

                                                              i.      Concurrence: White, J.- Π did NOT show that Jx is not common sense

1.      If something is arbitrary and lacks common sense, then it should be abandoned. Since all States use transient Jx, it MUST make sense and not be arbitrary

                                                            ii.      Concurrence: Stevens, J. - This case was easy to decide considering the historical evidence and consensus of the ideas of fairness.

                                                          iii.      Concurrence: Brennan, J. – Personal Jx is satisfied not only because process was served in forum State, but because Δ “purposefully availed” himself of Cal. law, even if it was for a brief time.

1.      Asymmetry: Why can transient sue resident, but NOT vice versa

e.       Rule- Physical presence alone DOES constitute the Due Process clause because bit is one of the enduring traditions of our legal system that define Due Process

f.       Rationale-

                                                              i.      Physical presence is one of the traditions that define the Due Process standard

                                                            ii.      That standard was developed by analogy to physical presence

g.      Notes-

                                                              i.      An individual’s presence in a State constitutes Jx because it does NOT offend the “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” (sounds circular)

                                                            ii.      Race to the court house: both parties try to bring suit ASAP…before the other party

                                                          iii.      Scalia, J. is an originalist, he believes that judges’ powers can be kept in check by simply reading the law as it is, and not to read into it too much. He focuses on the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

1.      14^th Amd does NOT mandate transient Jx…but it allows transient Jx

                                                          iv.      Domicile: two requirements

1.      Physical Presence- Individuals can only have one State of domicile

2.      Intends to remain there indefinitely