a.
Facts-
D was out-of-state company that had salesmen in Washington (P). P initially
sued D to recover unpaid unemployment taxes on its employees within Washington.
D claimed that P could not impose such taxes because D did not have any
“employees” per the Washington statute and that D did not have a “presence”
within Washington.
b.
Procedural
History- Motion to dismiss denied, and Statute was enacted
c.
Issues-
Whether service of process on a D’s agent in a State where the D corporation
does NOT have residence, but does have contacts to the State by business
dealings permissible
i.
Procedural:
Can the WA court require a foreign Corp to answer to a suit in WA?
ii.
Substantive:
Can WA exact a tax on a foreign Corp?
d.
Holding-
Yes, serving an agent of a D corporation is permissible under the Fed. R. Civil
P.
i.
The
Corp has the power to sue in Washington…so why can’t they answer a suit?
ii.
Dissent:
the state should NOT have the power to tax based on an ambiguous statement like
“fair play and substantial justice”
e.
Rule-
In order for a State to have personal jurisdiction over a D, D must have minimum contacts with the State:
i.
Contact
must be “continuous and systematic”
ii.
Having
personal jurisdiction over the person does NOT offend “traditional notions of
fair play and substantial justice”
f.
Rationale-
D had sufficient “minimum contacts” with the State such that the State can
exercise jurisdiction over said corporation
i.
Since
the Corp can enjoy the laws of a State, why can’t it answer to a State’s laws?
g.
Notes:
i.
Delaware
Corp…but principal place of business is Missouri. Jurisdiction can be found in
both States
ii.
Cause
of Dispute is in WA
iii.
State
of WA did both: service by mail AND actual service
iv.
Special
(and limited) appearance- The ONLY reason I am going to Ct, is to contest
jurisdiction
v.
If
you want to contest personal jurisdiction for your client…you MUST raise this
issue at EVERY stage of litigation
1.
To
preserve issues for the purposes of appeal…everything must be put out in every
stage of litigation
vi.
Shoe
was found to be “doing business” in WA because:
1.
it
had “regular/continuous and systematic” involvement with WA
2.
it
had minimum contacts
3.
the
“quality and nature” of the activities were sufficient to establish such minimum
contacts
vii.
What
if “independent contractor”?
1.
In
“Shoe”, the point was that Shoe had “control” over their salesmen
viii.
Int
Shoe was benefiting/protection from the laws of the State of WA…so it’s only
fair that they MUST respond to suits in WA. Reciprocal Relationship
1.
It’s
a privilege for Shoe to do business in WA
2.
Because
of this reciprocity, this gave rise to the obligation to respond to suits that
come out of Shoe’s activities within WA
ix.
What
did the Ct look for?
1.
Volume
for contacts
2.
Whether
those contacts are “continuous and systematic”
3.
They
balance the convenience to both parties
4.
Look
after the State interest
a.
State
wants to collect unemployment insurance for its residents, AND
b.
It’s
Ct system should be open for its residents to complain against Corps like Shoe
5.
Relation
between the contacts (activities in-State) and the suit
6.
Does
the D benefit from the State?
7.
Did
the D foresee a law suit?
a.
If
I direct my biz into a State, I consent to being sued
x.
States
codified the rules from International Shoe by passing Statutes
1.
IL
version (very specific)- 4 acts that constitute jurisdiction
2.
CA
model (very broad) - “A Ct of this State may exercise Jx on any basis not
inconsistent with the Constitution of this State or of the U.S.”
No comments:
Post a Comment