Opinion ID: 398246
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fairness of Louisiana Forum

Text: 18 As the district court seemed to find this second (or fairness) ruling dispositive, we will turn our attention to this point. The district court found particularly important the fact that the main issue in the present suit involved contract damages, not the title to the property in Louisiana 3 (since the Quashas had previously sold the mineral properties to a third party purchaser); that the plaintiffs were not Louisiana residents that the state would be seeking to protect; and that, as both parties were nonresidents, if the plaintiffs must suffer some inconvenience in litigating in a foreign forum, the defendants should not be required to suffer that same inconvenience. Upon review of the factors involved in this case, we find that it is not unfair nor unreasonable under the circumstances to require Shale to defend this suit in Louisiana. 19 Louisiana has a legitimate and reasonable interest in providing a forum for this lawsuit. Louisiana has a special interest in negotiations regarding the sale of mineral property located within the state, characterized by Louisiana law as immovable property (i.e., in common law terms, as realty). 20 Initially, we note that, whether the suit is brought in Louisiana or in California, nevertheless under accepted conflict principles the law of Louisiana, the situs of the mineral property, will govern the validity of the contract to sell the immovable property and the rights created thereby. Restatement, Conflict of Laws 2d, §§ 189, 223 (1971). 4 Further, with regard to the alleged confection of the contract, the bids were received in Louisiana, the offer and counter-offer were made from Louisiana, and the acceptance of the counter-offer was sent to and received in Louisiana-Louisiana factual indicia, governed by the applicable Louisiana law. 21 Additionally important, if the defendants had in fact deposited the funds in escrow and sought to enforce the contract, then-not only would Louisiana law govern the validity of the contract-the defendants would also ultimately have been required to resort to Louisiana courts to enforce a decree rendered in another jurisdiction relating to the contract. As the Supreme Court noted, the (c)ourts of one State are completely without jurisdiction directly to affect title to land in other States, Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 115, 84 S.Ct. 242, 247, 11 L.Ed.2d 186 (1963), citing earlier decisions, such as Fall v. Eastin, 215 U.S. 1, 30 S.Ct. 3, 54 L.Ed. 65 (1909) (which held that, for this reason, Nebraska courts were not required to give full faith and credit to a Washington order that decreed the conveyance of Nebraska land, 215 U.S. at 8-12, 30 S.Ct. at 6-8). 22 Thus, the defendants, when bidding for the property, intended to acquire an interest in Louisiana property in a situation where the validity of the transaction would be governed by Louisiana law and where it was foreseeable that the contract itself might ultimately be enforceable by Louisiana courts. We therefore do not have an instance of unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant (, which) cannot (by itself) satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State, but rather an instance where the essential requirement is met that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1239-40, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). 23 Weighing the relative convenience or inconvenience to each party of litigating in Louisiana is not decisive in this situation. While the defendants obviously would find it more convenient to litigate in the home state, on the other hand most witnesses and evidence would more readily be available in the Louisiana forum at the situs of the property. 5 Defending the present suit in Louisiana will not cause Shale or Thomas any more hardship than for them to have come to Louisiana to assert their right to the property in question-the potential hardship they assumed by participating in acts in Louisiana with the aim of entering into a contract to purchase Louisiana immovable (real) property. In the situation before us, we are not persuaded that the inconvenience to the defendants rises to the level of a denial of due process. Products Promotion v. Cousteau, supra, 495 F.2d at 498. 24 We therefore concede that, under the present facts, the maintenance of this suit against Shale on a contract to purchase 6 immovable property in Louisiana will not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'  International Shoe, supra, 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S.Ct. at 158.