D separated from his wife and his children moved to CA with their mother.
D visited CA on business and visited his children while he was there. After returning the children to their mother, he was served with CA court summons and his wife's divorce petition.
D moved to quash because the court lacked jurisdiction.
Procedural History:
Lower court denied motion.
CA Court of Appeal denied motion.
SCOTUS denied D's motion, jurisdiction valid.
Issues:
Does the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment deny courts jurisdiction over nonresidents, who were personally served in the state with process while temporarily in that state, in a suit unrelated to their activities in the state?
Holding/Rule:
A state may exercise jurisdiction over nonresidents who are served in the state with process while temporarily in that state in a suit unrelated to their activities in the state.
Reasoning:
There hasn't been a single American court case that held or even suggested that in-state personal service on an individual was insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.
There are no state or federal statutes that have abandoned in-state service as a basis of jurisdiction.
Due process does not necessarily require states to adhere to the unbending territorial limits on jurisdiction set forth in Pennoyer.
As International Shoe suggests, the D's litigation-related "minimum contacts" may take the place of physical presence as the basis for jurisdiction. It says nothing of Ds who are physically in the state when served with process.
Brennan said that physical presence in a state satisfies minimum contacts because the D avails himself of the benefits provided by the state (i.e. health and safety services, use of roads, use of state economy).
Dissent:
None given.
Notes:
This case differs from Kulko because the D was served in the state where jurisdiction is being exercised.
Different than Shaffer too. Shaffer dealt with absent out of state defendants.
