Opinion ID: 2051912
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Facial Challenge.

Text: Doubletree challenges section 507C.4 on its face, because it does not require minimum contacts as a prerequisite to the exercise of personal jurisdiction. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95, 102 (1940). [2] We will construe a statute in such a way as to preserve it and render it constitutional, if possible. Hines v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R., 330 N.W.2d 284, 290 (Iowa 1983). We believe such a construction is appropriate here. Section 507C.4(3) provides that [a] court having jurisdiction of the subject matter has jurisdiction over a person served pursuant to the Iowa rules of civil procedure or other applicable provisions.... In connection with service of notice, Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 56.2 provides that [e]very corporation, individual, personal representative, partnership or association that shall have the necessary minimum contact with the state of Iowa shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, and the courts of this state shall hold such corporation, individual, personal representative, partnership or association amenable to suit in Iowa in every case not contrary to the provisions of the constitution of the United States. (Emphasis added.) We have stated that rule 56.2 expands Iowa's jurisdictional reach to the widest due process parameters of the federal constitution. Larsen v. Scholl, 296 N.W.2d 785, 788 (Iowa 1980). Iowa Code section 507C.4 must be considered as incorporating the requirements of necessary minimum contact[s] as embodied in rule 56.2 thereby adopting the minimum contacts principles of International Shoe. We conclude that the statute when considered in this manner is facially valid.