SECOND DI VI SI ON DOYLE, C. J.

, M I LLER, P. J.

, and REESE, J.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

M ay 15, 2017



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 7 A0 21 3 . YP, LLC et al . v

. RISTICH.

M I LLE R , Pres i d i n g J u d g e.

Pl ai n t i ffs YP, LLC an d YP Ad v ert i s i n g & Pu b l i s h i n g , L L C (co ll ect i vel y “ YP”)

fi led s u i t ag ai n s t Pet er Ri st i ch

, d / b / a To p Seal Co at in g (“ Ri s t i ch ”) 1 i n t h i s co n t ract

d i s p u t e ari s i n g fro m

ad v ert i s em en t s Ri s ti ch p l aced i n t h e Yel l o w Pag es d i rect o ri es

.

Ri s t i ch d i d n o t an s wer t h e co m p l ai n t o r res p o n d t o d is co v ery req u es t s. N ev ert h el es s ,

t h e t ri al co u rt s u a s p o n te di s m i s s ed t h e co m p l ai n t wi t h o ut p reju d i c e fo r l ack o f

p ers o n al ju ri sd i ct io n u nd er t h e Geo rg i a Lo n g Arm St at u te, OCGA § 9 -1 0 -9 1

, an d fo r

i n s u ffi ci en t serv i ce o f p ro ces s

. YP n o w ap p eal s

. Ri s t i ch h as n o t a p p e a r e d i n t h i s

ap p eal

. Aft er a t h o ro u gh rev i ew o f t he reco rd

, w e co n cl u de t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred

i n d is m i s s i n g th e co m

p lai n t fo r l ack o f p er s o n a l ju ri s di ct io n un d er t he Lo n g Arm

1 Ri s t i ch ’ s l as t n am e al s o ap p ears as “ Ras t i ch ” i n t h e reco rd

.St at u t e. Acco rd i n g l y , we rev ers e t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er o f d i s m i s s al an d rem an d fo r

fu rt her p ro ceed i n g s co ns i st en t wi t h t h i s o p i n i on

.

“ W e rev i ew a t ri al co u rt ’ s s u a s p o nt e ord er of d i s m i s s al d e n ov o .” Ha yg o o d v.

Hea d , 3 0 5 Ga. Ap p . 3 7 5, 3 7 7 (1 ) (6 9 9 SE2 d 5 8 8 ) (2 0 1 0 ).

1

. YP fi rs t arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n d i s m i s s i n g t h e co m p l ai n t s u a

s p o n te fo r l ack o f p ers on al ju ri s d i ct i o n . W e ag ree.

“ J u ri s d i ct i o n o f t h e p ers o n i s t h e p o wer o f a co u rt t o ren der a p ers o n al

ju d g m en t

, o r t o s ub

ject t h e p art i es i n a p a r t i cu l ar cas e t o t h e d eci si o n s an d ru l i ng s

m ad e b y i t i n s u ch cas e[.] ” (Ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i on o m i t ted .) W i l l i a m s v. Fu l l er ,

2 4 4 Ga. 8 4 6

, 8 4 9 (3 ) (2 6 2 SE2 d 1 3 5 ) (1 97 9 ). “ [A] co u rt h as a d u ty t o i nq u i re i n t o i t s

ju ri s d i ct i o n , u p o n i t s o wn m o t io n wh ere t h ere i s d ou b t

, an d i s au t h o ri zed to d i s m i ss

a cas e ag ai n s t a d efen d an t wh ere p ers o n al j u ri s d i ct io n i s l ack i n g .” B& D Fa b r i ca t o rs

v. D

. H. Bl a i r In ves tmen t B a n ki n g Co r p

. , 2 2 0 G a. A p p

. 37 3

, 3 7 5 -3 7 6 (2 ) (4 6 9 SE2 d

6 8 3 ) (1 9 9 6 )

It is wel l -s et t led

, h o wev er, t h at p art i es m a y wai v e ch al l en ges t o p ers o n al

ju ri s d i ct i o n b y co n tract

. OCGA § 9 -1 1 -1 2 (h ) (1 ); C & S Ca p i ta l Co r p

. v. S weet wa t er

Ho mes

, In c. , 1 9 1 G a. Ap p

. 5 7 1 (3 8 2 SE2 d 3 99 ) (1 98 9 ) (t ri al co u rt erred i n su a s p o n t e

d i s m i s s i n g b reach -o f-co n t ra c t c o m p l ai n t fo r l ack of p ers o n al ju ri s d i ct i o n wh ere

2p art i es ag reed i n t he v ery co n t ract at i s su e t o s u b m i t t o ju ri s di ct i o n of t h e co u rt ). Su ch

p ro v is i o n s i n co n t ract s are v al i d an d en fo rceab l e u n l es s “ sh o w n by t h e r es i s t i n g p a r t y

t o b e u n reas o n ab l e u n d er t h e ci rcu m s t an ces .” (Em p h as i s s up p li ed .) Lea s e Fi n a nce

G r o u p v

. Del p h i

, In c. , 2 66 G a. Ap p

. 1 7 3

, 1 7 4 (5 9 6 SE2 d 6 9 1 ) (2 0 0 4 ); s ee al s o

Ho u s eb o a t S t o r e v. Ch ri s -Cr af t Co r p

. , 3 0 2 Ga. Ap p. 7 9 5

, 7 97 -7 9 8 (1 ) (b ) (6 9 2 SE2 d

6 1 ) (2 0 10 ) (en fo rci n g fo ru m s el ect i o n cl au s e i n co n t ract w h ere o p p o si n g p art y h ad

n o t s h o wn en fo rcem en t wo u ld b e u n reas o n ab le).

Th e tri al co u rt h ere co n cl u d ed t h at YP h ad n o t es t ab l i s h ed th e co u rt ’ s p ers o n al

ju ri s d i ct i o n ov er Ri s t i ch u n d er t h e Geo rg i a Lo ng Arm St at ut e. Pers o n al j u ri s d i ct i o n

i n th i s cas e, ho wev er, i s n o t b as ed o n th e Lo n g Arm St at u te, b u t rat h er i s p rem i s ed o n

Ri s t i ch ’ s wai v er o f p ers o nal j u ri s di ct i o n i n hi s co n t ract w i t h YP. In p art i cu l ar, i n t h e

fo ru m s el ect i o n cl au s e i n t h e co n t ract

, Ri s t i ch s peci fi cal l y co n s en t ed to p ers o n al

ju ri s d i ct i o n i n th e Su p eri o r Co u rt o f DeKal b Co u n t y o r t h e U .S. Di s t ri ct Co u rt fo r t h e

No rt h ern Di s t ri ct o f Geo rg i a fo r an y d i s p ut es ari s i n g o ut o f hi s co n t ract wi t h YP. See

C & S Ca p i t a l Co r p. , s u p ra, 1 9 1 Ga. Ap p. at 5 7 1 -5 7 2 ; cf. Ap p ar el Res o ur ces In t l

.,

Lt d

. v. Amer s i g S o u t h e a s t

, In c. , 2 1 5 Ga. Ap p

. 4 83

, 4 8 4 -4 85 (1 ) (4 5 1 SE2 d 1 1 3 )

(1 9 9 4) ( n o nres i d en t cu s to m er wai ved i t s ch al len g e t o p ers o n al ju ri s d i ct i o n t h ro u g h

u n am b i g u o u s fo ru m s el ect i o n cl au s e i n c o n t r act

, b u t wai v er d i d n o t ex t en d to

3n o n res i d en t g uaran to r wh o s e co n t ract d id n o t co nt ai n a fo ru m s el ect io n c l a u s e a n d

wh o o t h erwi s e l ack ed m in i m u m co n t act s wi t h s t at e t o o t h erwi s e co n fer ju ri s d i ct i o n ).

Th e tri al co u rt d i d n ot co n s i d er wh et h er t h e fo ru m s el ect i o n cl au s e i n Ri s t i ch ’ s

co n t r a ct was reas on ab l e – p res u m ab l y b ecau s e Ri s t i ch has n o t y et ap p eared i n t h i s

act i on

– an d it i s Ri s t i ch ’ s b u rd en t o s h o w t h at t h e f o r u m s e l e c t i o n cl au s e i s

u n reas o nab l e. Ab sen t su ch a s h o wi n g , we p res u m e t h e cl au s e i s v a l i d

. See Eq u i t y

Tr u st Co

. v. Jo nes , 3 3 9 Ga. Ap p

. 1 1 (7 9 2 SE2 d 45 8 ) (2 0 16 ) (“ [F] o ru m s el ect i o n

cl au s es are p ri m a faci e v al i d an d s h ou l d b e en fo rced u n les s t h e op p o s i n g p a r t

y s h o ws

t h at en fo rcem en t wo u l d be unr e a sona ble und er t h e ci rcu m s t an ces .”) (ci tat i o n o m i t t ed

,

e m pha s i s s u p p li ed ). Acco rd in g l y , b ecau se Ri s t i ch d id n o t rai s e an affi rm at i v e d ef e nse

t o ju ri s di ct io n , t h e tri al co urt l ack ed au th o ri t y t o as sert i t on h i s b eh al f by s ua s p o n t e

d i s m i s s i n g t h e co m

p l ai nt fo r l ack o f p ers o nal ju ri s di ct i o n u n d er t he L o n g Arm

St at u t e. See Fo cu s H

ea l t h ca re Med i ca l Cen t er v. O’Nea l

, 2 5 3 Ga. Ap p. 29 8

, 2 9 9 (a)

(5 5 8 SE2 d 8 18 ) (2 0 0 2 ) (“ Th e t ri al co u rt l ack s au t h o ri ty t o as s ert on b eh al f o f a p art y

affi rm at i v e d efen s es t h at can b e wai v ed .”).

2

. YP n ex t arg u es t h a t t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y d i s m is si n g t h e co m p l ai n t fo r

i n s u ffi ci en t s erv i ce of p ro ces s b ecau s e YP serv ed Ri s ti ch i n acco rd an ce wi t h Geo rg i a

l aw. W e ag ree.

4OCGA § 9 -1 1 -4 (e) (7 ) 2 p ro v i d e s fo r p ers o n al serv i ce o n a d efen d an t

. Th e

reco rd co n t ai n s a ret u rn o f s erv i ce, wh i ch s h ows t h at Ri st ich was p ers o n al l y s erv ed

wi t h a co p y o f t he co m

pl ai n t an d req u es t s t o ad m i t

. Th is ret u rn o f s erv i ce i s a p ri m a

faci e s h o w i n g of p ers o nal s erv i ce. Y el l e v. U.S

. Su b u rb a n Pr es s , 2 1 6 Ga. Ap p

. 4 6

, 4 7

(4 5 3 SE2 d 1 0 8 ) (1 9 9 5 ).

Th e t ri al co u rt b as ed i t s d eci si o n o n t he req u irem en t s fo r s erv i ce u n d er t h e

Lo n g Arm St at u t e. As d i s cu s s ed ab o v e, h o wev er, th e Lo ng Arm St at u t e was n o t t h e

b as i s fo r t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s p ers o n al ju ri s d ict i o n o v e r Ri s t i ch i n t h i s cas e. 3 M o reo v er,

i n s u ffi ci en t s erv ice o f p ro ces s i s a d efen s e t o ju ri sd i ct i o n t hat al s o can b e w ai v ed

. See

OCGA § 9 -1 1 -1 2 (h ) (1 ); Mer r y v. Ro b i n s on , 3 1 3 Ga. Ap p

. 3 2 1

, 3 22 (1 ) (7 2 1 SE2 d

5 6 7 ) ( 2 0 1 1 ) ( d efen d an t wai v ed ch al l en g e to s erv ice b y dep u t y s h eri ff b y fai l i n g to

t i m e l y r a i s e th e i s su e); Oa s is Go o d t i me Emp o r iu m I, In c. v. Ca mb r i d ge Ca p i t al

Gr o up , In c. , 2 3 4 Ga. Ap p . 6 4 1 , 6 4 2 -6 4 3 (3 ) (5 0 7 SE2 d 8 2 3 ) (1 9 9 8 ) (s am e).

2 OC G A § 9-1 1-4 (e) set s ou t t h e m et h o d s fo r p ers o n al serv i ce. Aft er l i s t i n g

s p eci fi c m et h o d s fo r s erv i ce t hat are n o t ap p l i cab l e h ere, i t s t at es , “ [i ] n al l o t h er cas es

t o t he d efen d an t p ers on al l y . . . .” OCGA § 9 -1 1 -4 (e) (7 ).

3 Ev en i f s erv i ce were effect ed u n der t h e Lo n g Arm St at u t e, O CGA § 9 -1 0 -9 4,

o u t o f s t a t e s e r v i ce i s pro per u n d er t h e s am e p ro v i s i o ns fo r s erv ice i n s i d e t h e s t at e, wh i ch i n cl u d e p ers o n al s erv i ce. See OCGA § § 9 -1 0 -9 4 ; 9 -1 1 -4 (e).

5In t h i s cas e, Ri st i ch d i d n o t ap pear b efo re t h e t ri al co u rt an d h as n ot ch al l en g ed

s erv i ce of p ro ces s

. Y P s u bm i t t ed un reb u t ted ev i d en ce th at s erv i ce w as effect ed o n

Ri s t i ch p ers o n al l y i n Oh i o

. Th u s , YP h as m ad e a pri m a faci e s h o wi n g o f s erv i ce, an d

t h e t ri al co urt erred b y

s u a s p o nt e d i sm i s s i n g t he co m p l ai n t fo r i ns u ffi ci en t s erv i ce.

In reach i n g t h is co n cl u s i o n , w e ex pres s n o op i ni o n as t o t h e m eri t s o f an y l at er

ch al l en g e t h at Ri s t i ch m ay rai s e t o t he s uffi ci en cy

o f s erv i ce.

Fo r t h e fo reg oi n g re a s o ns , we rev ers e th e tri al co u rt ’ s ord er d is m i s s i n g YP’ s

co m p l ai n t an d rem an d t he cas e fo r fu rt her p ro ceed i n g s.

Ju d g men t r ever sed a n d ca s e r ema nd

ed . Do yl e, C. J., a n d

Rees e, J., co n cu r

.

6