Legal Document

455 U.S. 404 102 Supreme Court Reporter 1137 71 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 250 G. D. SEARLE & COMPANY, Petitioner,v.Susan COHN and Walter Cohn. Number 80-644. Argued Dec. 7, 1981. Decided Feb. 24, 1982. Syllabus A New Jersey statute tolls the limitation period for an action against a foreign corporation that "is not represented" in by any person or officer upon whom process may be served. In respondents' petitioner corporation, originally brought state court removed to Federal District Court, moved summary judgment based applicable of limitation, respondents countered with tolling provision. Although ruling was represented purposes provision, nevertheless held suit barred. Reasoning provision operated preserve only causes corporate defendants were subject personam jurisdiction Jersey, enactment Jersey's long-arm rule, rationale pre-existing ceased exist, found invalid under Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. The Appeals reversed. That court's decision intervening holding that, as matter law, continued force despite advent jurisdiction, such did violate Clause, because increased difficulty out-of-state service provided rational basis unrepresented corporation. Held: 1. does Clause. Rational reasons support institution Jersey. remains potentially difficult locate, has made equivalent representative but requires additional conditions effective service. Because these burdens connected suing corporations, opposed domestic deprive equal protection laws. Pp. 1141-1144. 2. But since neither lower addressed directly question whether violates Commerce since, moreover, issue is clouded ambiguity Appeals' vacated, case remanded consideration issue. Pacific KF135 P2 1144. 628 Reporter, 2nd 801, vacated remanded. William Richmond, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. R. Cohn, South Orange, N.J., respondents. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Court. 1 statute, N.J.Stat.Ann. § 2A:14-22 (West 1952), amenable courts no Third Circuit this Due Process Clauses We agree, we vacate remand petitioner's challenge statute. 2 * Respondents, Susan are husband wife. 1963, Cohn suffered stroke. Eleven years later, 1974, Cohns sued petitioner, Searle Co., Superior Essex County, alleging Cohn's stroke caused her use oral contraceptive manufactured petitioner.1 Petitioner served N.J.Ct.Rule 4:4-4(c)(1) (1969). federal thereafter 2-year 2A:14-2 governing "action at law injury . wrongful act." Respondents 2A:14-22. section cause "by summons other original served."2 3 ruled provision.3 447 F.Supp. 903, 907-909 (N.J.1978). Nevertheless, it According had prem102 1141m serve ONLY With now 4:4-4(c),4 exist. On reasoning, logical purpose, therefore barred suit. F.Supp., 911-913. 4 appealed. Before reached decision, however, decided Velmohos versus Maren Engineering Corp., 83 N.J. 282, 416 Atlantic 372 (1980), appeal pending, 80-629. ruled, jurisdiction. addition, concluded Amendment, 5 then followed Court's lead reversed Court.5 Summing up what felt explained: "Since more time-consuming achieve than within state, out-of-state, non-represented locate let alone serve, limitations protects plaintiffs facilitates their lawsuits defendants." Hopkins Kelsey-Hayes, Inc., 811 (CA3 1980). 6 novel substantial character involved, granted certiorari, 451 905, 101 1972, 68 293 (1981). II 7 Like Appeals, conclude absence classification inherently invidious impinges fundamental rights, upheld attack if rationally related achievement legitimate governmental ends. Schweiker Wilson, 450 221, 230, 1074, 1080, 67 186 need satisfy constitutional minimum. As explained Chase Securities Corporation Donaldson, 325 304, 314, 65 1137, 1142, 89 L.Ed. 1628 (1945): 8 "[Statutes limitation] represent public policy about privilege litigate. Their shelter never been regarded called 'fundamental' right used 'natural' individual. He may, course, have while exists, history pleas shows them good legislative grace relatively large degree control." 9 See also Campbell Holt, 115 620, 209, 29 483 (1885).6 10 insists longer objective. Repeating argument below, claims statute's purpose those unable obtain over corporations. presence contends, there valid reason without representative. 11 note outset, passing, fails law. disagreed interpretation observed State's mention corporations thus treated like all defendants. 1949, legislature amended exempted except "not legislature, emphasized, limit service" Consequently, reasoned, rendered meaningless subsequent acceptance 288-293, A.2d, 376-379. construed highest judicial authority on meaning cannot confined narrowly would like. 12 When examined survives First, locate. Long-arm alleviate problem, plaintiff must find before can id., 296, 380. It true, little trouble locating particular, well-known defendant-petitioner, premised reasonable assumption general so easy serve. Weinberger Salfi, 422 749, 780-785, 95 2457, 2474-76, 45 522 (1975). 13 Second, (1969), prescribes extraterritorial ensure properly invoked. Velmohos, 14 "Under our rules, extra-territorial simply alternative State. Plaintiffs resort unless proper efforts effect failed. rule imposes further burden requiring him gather sufficient information 'consistent due law.' " 381. 15 Thus, bear when he sues lacking defendant 16 response rationales treating differently from argues unnecessary. cites 4:2-2 contends his hard-to-locate filing complaint thereby halting running period. adequate substitute dismiss prosecuted after six months, 1:13-7, issued days complaint, 4:4-1. event, State provide one solution perceived problem. appropriately commented: "Nothing logic prevents providing mechanism relief suits nonrepresented which Rules." F.2d, 811. 17 plaintiff's do justify leaving open time limit. expressly authorized plead another defense tardy While denies benefit stated flatly, free laches. "If delay inexcusable resulted prejudice defendant, latter raise equitable laches bar claim." 293, n. 10, 378, 10. amenable, successfully excused "prejudice." sum, serving agree laws.7 Dew Appleberry, 23 Cal.3d 630, 153 Cal.Rptr. 219, 591 509 (1979) (holding similar interest); Vaughn Deitz, 430 Western 487, 490 (Tex.1968) consistent protection, suspension limitation). Cf. Bauserman Blunt, 147 647, 466, 37 316 (1893) (applying Kansas service, discussing issue). III 18 Petitioner, raises challenge. interpreted argues, order certificate registering business 14A:13-2 1969). result, will itself duties liabilities imposed points out engaged solely interstate commerce and, relying cases Allenberg Cotton company Pittman, 419 20, 260, 42 195 (1974), Sioux Remedy Cope, 235 197, 35 57, 59 193 (1914), register gain limitation. For two reasons, decline resolve 19 nor directly. There Appeals. footnote, suggested 911, 17. answering contention enacted penalty induce make.8 considered its present form. 20 dispute centers seems us opaque footnote majority Velmohos. court, citation, "We whatever hardship might exposure easily eliminated designation agent State." contending procedure appointing agent, interprets sentence pursuant 1969) hand, read referring mere appointment accomplished some manner unexplained us. 21 lone clearly demonstrate correctness either view lucidly inform is. consider unwise pass constitutionality aspect uncertain critical footnote's meaning, particularly light fact address state-law issues. case, determine argument, raised merit. 22 ordered. POWELL, THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring part dissenting part. 24 N Immigration Nationality Decisions concur Parts opinion. Part opinion, addresses "decline[s] resolve" "neither directly." assigned remanding 372, "ambiguous." 25 presented petitioner,1 normally fully remand. was, argued Circuit. Pet. Certiorari 6-7.2 Curiously, continued, do, rely ground. Its petition certiorari included "constitutes imposition [on] commerce." Id., i. full knowledge ignored certiorari. Our grant questions presented. And Indeed, length both parties briefs argument. my view, 26 share exists decide case. 27 way appoint process, limitations, transact answer means agent—without qualifying business—are This difference between resolution question, significant consequences follow registration. Neither attention, identifies means—other qualification—of duly process. 28 perceives following Velmohos: [due limitations] 30 merely says problem process." neutral observation nothing If genuine statutes indeed justified. ambiguity. 31 Only three identified relevant, 32 §§ 14A:4-1 14A:13-4 conventional type qualification includes requirement registered agent. Section 14A:13-4(1) file office Secretary application setting forth specified information, including name "a statement served." 33 Counsel obtained—and filed Court—an advising, effect, foregoing designating process.3 34 suggests limitations. reviewed enacted, tolled periods resident State; specific reference 1949 add current language, grants "represented" quoted portion history: 'Foreign licensed deprived construction bill correct situation.' 290, 377, quoting Statement Accompanying Assembly 467 (1949) (emphasis added). Coons Honda Motor Limited Japan, 176 N.J.Super. 575, 582, 424 446, cert. 80-2003. scheme licensing confirmation et seq. disputed counsel. They statutory necessary. Rather, they insist authorizing cite statutes: fictitious 14A:2-2.1 Supp.1981-1982), partnership registration 56:1-1 1964). official, complying 36 cited appears anything agents makes provisions accompanying comments Law Revision Commission, "[t]he [statute] create record names eliminate possibility deception." Commissioners' Comment 1972 reprinted Supp.1981-1982). Moreover, counsel claim uses—or ever used—a equally irrelevant. Commission explains relationship 38 "Until adoption [the statute], name, although proprietorships partnerships transacting assumed certificates. N.J.S.A. inapplicable 56:1-5." Ibid. 39 respondent offered proprietorship "inapplicable corporations."4 40 attention statutes, others. seq., explicitly provides relied circumstances, justified concluding—as advises—that designate obtaining business. 41 squarely presents serious State, unduly commerce.5 (1974). considerable force. counsel, think fairness should rather continuation litigation. dissent 43 STEVENS, dissenting. 44 novel. unregistered somewhat gave fair opportunity overcome difficulties—for example, limited unquestionably permissible. deny limitations? differential treatment, automatically treatment constitutionally permissible? not; Constitution special disfavored class well differently. avoids troubling noting appropriate Ante, 1143. material differences laches—which prove prejudice—and proof. availability eliminates justification it; lessens adverse consequences. 46 challenged statute.* reverse Delaware principal place Illinois. At times pertinent manufacturing selling pharmaceutical products. reads part: sections 2A:14-1 2A:14-5 2A:14-8 accrues, organized laws action, served, accrues expiration limited, during residing shall computed required commenced section. entitled commence same accrual therefor, therefor said section, exclusive nonresidence nonrepresentation." so-called "detailmen" These employees who promoted products among physicians. contrary urging, detailmen "persons" "officers" 906-907 (N.J.1978), agreed, 808 promulgated 1958 N.J.Ct.R.R. 4:4-4(d). 1971, permit extent allowed Constitution. Avdel Mecure, 58 264, 277 207. generally 289-292, 376-378 consolidated appeals instant 463 539 aff'd, 801 1980), 80-663. Hopkins, different Judge Clauses. conceded implicate suspect classification. 808-809. heightened level scrutiny doing voice Legislature. basis, distinction Southern Life insurance Board Equalization California, 648, 668, 2070, 2083, 514 true here where treats having presses claim. unfairly irrationally denying certain Statute Limitations furthering societal interest." Brief Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant Nos. 79-2406 79-2605 (CA3), Page 29. rejected contention. restatement 297, attempted put forward new notes accept 10; see infra, Fearing otherwise minimum contacts International Shoe Washington, 326 310, 66 154, 90 (1945), conditioning it. Ortiz, 891, 898, 2585, 2589, 623 time, seeking supply arguing intended licenses. suggesting reading sound ground theory origin, hint designed failure license. apparently sua sponte, question. ante, 1144, n.8. Petitioner's assertion confirmed brief. Pages 2, 33-38. follows: "In your recent letter, please advised Department qualified Letter Frank Capece, Executive Assistant James Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Freis, Esquire (Oct. 22, 1981). addition facial inapplicability, apparent administered State—the 3, supra. Corporations certificates maintain office, report annually, 14A:4-5 pay taxes, 54:10A-2 waive defending forum contacts, future 14A:13-4(1)(d) 1969); Litton Industrial Systems, Incorporated Kennedy Van Saun 117 52, 61, 283 551, 556 (1971). Restatement (Second) Conflict Laws (States exercise agent's even though exists). understand interest attempting require submit courts, discrimination desire accomplish purpose. Since enact prohibits asserting personal believe disfavors refused take 674, 2086, (STEVENS, J., dissenting).

Classification Label: 7