Opinion ID: 1405642
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Ferdinand Was Subject To The Personal Jurisdiction Of The Circuit Court.

Text: Imelda maintains that it was improper for the circuit court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Ferdinand because: (1) the events upon which the plaintiffs-appellees' claims were based occurred exclusively in the Philippines; (2) Roxas was a citizen and resident of the Philippines; (3) Ferdinand was a citizen and resident of the Philippines; (4) Ferdinand's presence in Hawai`i was due to his involuntary exile from the Philippines, which was caused by a unilateral act of the United States governmentan act tantamount to kidnapping; (5) Ferdinand never intended to become a permanent resident of Hawai`i, but, rather, intended to return to the Philippines; and (6) Ferdinand transacted no business, committed no tortious act, caused no injury, and owned no real estate in Hawai`i. The plaintiffs-appellees respond that the issue of personal jurisdiction is precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, in light of a purported ruling of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i, which they cite as Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22542. However, the plaintiffs-appellees failed to provide a certified copy of this apparently unpublished opinion. Accordingly, they have failed to offer proof of the prior adjudication of the issue. In any event, Imelda's arguments regarding personal jurisdiction fail because the Marcoses waived the issue at the outset of the lawsuit. Their first responsive pleading in this case was a motion to dismiss the complaint, accompanied by a motion for a more definite statement, both filed on January 20, 1989. Their motion to dismiss alleged several defects in the complaint, including insufficiency of service, but did not allege that the circuit court generally lacked personal jurisdiction over Marcos. HRCP Rule 12(g) (1996) provides that [a] party who makes a motion under this rule may join with it any other motions herein provided for and then available to him. If a party makes a motion under this rule but omits therefrom any defense or objection then available to him which this rule permits to be raised by motion, he shall not thereafter make a motion based on the defense or objection so omitted, except a motion as provided in subsection (h)(2) hereof on any of the grounds there stated. HRCP Rule 12(h)(1) (1996) provides that [a] defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, or insufficiency of service of process is waived (A) if omitted from a motion in the circumstances described in subdivision (g), or (B) if it is neither made by motion under this rule nor included in a responsive pleading or an amendment thereof permitted by Rule 15(a) to be made as a matter of course. (Emphases added.) We therefore hold, notwithstanding that the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction was asserted in the Marcoses' answer to the plaintiffs-appellees' complaint, that the Marcoses' failure to assert it in their motion to dismiss constitutes a waiver of the issue pursuant to HRCP Rule 12(g) and (h). Even if the issue had not been waived, Imelda's argument would fail. In order to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, [d]ue process requires that a nonresident defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). `[I]t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.' Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1239, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958)). The determining inquiry is whether `the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.' Id. at 474, 105 S.Ct. at 2183 (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 567, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980)). There is no talismanic jurisdictional formula and the court weighs each case on its facts. Id. at 485-86, 105 S.Ct. at 2189 (citation omitted). In re John Doe, Born on August 6, 1987, 83 Hawai`i 367, 373, 926 P.2d 1290, 1296 (1996) (quoting Shaw v. North Am. Title Co., 76 Hawai`i 323, 329-30, 876 P.2d 1291, 1297-98 (1994)). It is undisputed that Ferdinand lived in Hawai`i from February 25, 1986 until his death on September 29, 1989. Although Imelda alleges that Ferdinand was involuntarily removed from the Philippines and desired to return there, she does not allege that he was somehow imprisoned in Hawai`i. In other words, there is nothing in the record suggesting that, had he wished, Ferdinand could not have moved somewhere else. Nothing requires that a person establish Hawai`i as a domicile ( i.e., move here with the present intention of remaining indefinitely) in order to purposefully avail himself of this forum. Cf. Estate of Marcos, 88 Hawai`i at 154-55, 963 P.2d at 1130-31 (holding that the Hawai`i circuit court had no jurisdiction over the probate of Ferdinand's estate, inasmuch as probate jurisdiction is limited by statute to decedents formerly domiciled in the state). Pursuant to Imelda's logic, a person could move to Hawai`i and live here for an indeterminate period of time, so long as he or she never formed the intent to remain indefinitely, without ever becoming subject to personal jurisdiction in this state. This would be absurd. Ferdinand's three-year and seven-month sojourn in Hawai`i was neither fleeting nor involuntary. Accordingly, he availed himself sufficiently of the forum to be amenable to suit in this jurisdiction.