Legal Document

484 U.S. 97 108 S.Ct. 404 98 L.Ed.2d 415 OMNI CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL, et al., Petitionersv.RUDOLF WOLFF & CO., LTD., al. No. 86-740. Argued Oct. 6, 1987. Decided Dec. 8, Syllabus Omni Capital International, Ltd., and Corporation (hereafter petitioners), New York corporations, marketed an investment program involving commodity-futures trades on the London Metals Exchange. Certain investors filed suits (later consolidated) against petitioners in Federal District Court for Eastern of Louisiana, charging that fraudulently induced them to participate petitioners' program, violation various federal securities laws. Petitioners impleaded respondent Rudolf Wolff Co., a British corporation with offices was employed by handle Exchange, Gourlay respondents), United Kingdom citizen resident who Wolff's representative soliciting business. contended their liability, if any, caused respondents' improper trading activities. While action pending, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 353, 102 1825, 72 182, decided, recognizing implied private cause under Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), plaintiffs this litigation amended complaints allege violations Act. The dismissed other law claims as pre-empted CEA, held it lacked personal jurisdiction over respondents because (1) CEA silent about service process causes action, (2) thus, application Louisiana's long-arm statute required, (3) statute's requirements were not met. Appeals affirmed. Held: federal-question CEA. Pp. 102-111. (a) requirement court have flows from Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment. However, before may exercise defendant, there must be more than notice defendant constitutionally sufficient relationship between forum. There also basis defendant's amenability summons. Absent consent, authorization summons defendant. 103-104. (b) Under Rule Civil Procedure 4(e), normally looks either or State which sits determine whether out-of-state is amenable service. After Curran decision, while present still pending Court, Congress added § 22 explicitly authorizing but referring process, contrast Congress' explicit nationwide provisions civil actions This contrast, well legislative history, supports conclusion did intend provide Nor implicitly authorized any such petitioners', accrued prior 22's effective date. Moreover, held, concede, met here. 104-108. (c) Even within Court's power, judicial creation common-law rule would unwise. strength longstanding assumption courts cannot add scope has authorized, network statutory enactments decisions tied assumption, argue strongly devising provisions. responsibility creating rests those propose Rules Congress. 108-111. 795 F.2d 415, BLACKMUN, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Robert A. Kutcher, Orleans, La., petitioners. Elliot Paskoff, City, respondents. Justice BLACKMUN 1 case presents questions concerning prerequisites court's personam jurisdiction. 2 * (collectively Omni),1 its London, broker Respondent James Gourlay, Kingdom, served business Omni. 3 States Internal Revenue Service disallowed income tax deductions, claimed participants Omni's so ground program's commodities bona fide arm's-length transactions. A number corporate individual participated then sued four separate Louisiana.2 each charged that, misrepresenting benefits future profits, program. Omni, turn, Gourlay,3 contending 4 procedural history complex. original complaints, 1980 1981, Securities 1934, ch. 404, 48 Stat. 881, amended, 15 U.S.C. 78a seq. (1982 ed. Supp. IV); SEC 10b-5, 17 CFR 240.10b-5 (1987); 1933, 74, 77a IV), included pendent state-law claims. cases consolidated they decided 182 (1982). In we recognized 42 998, 7 IV). accordingly §§ 4b 9(b) 6b 13(b). 5 moved dismiss lack jurisdiction, and, additional ground, argued failed state action. initial dated May 13, 1983, having been concluded could Gourlay. App. 6. reasoned "Congress intended foreign defendants limits due clause Amendment." Id., at 9. Therefore, determined, "the quality nature activities . States" support "finding fair play substantial justice," proper. 9-10. examining extent Gourlay's contacts States, had 6 decision Circuit DeMelo Toche Marine, Inc., 711 1260 (1983). DeMelo, "when question based upon therefore utilized serve [Federal Procedure] 4(e) requires state's standard apply." 1266. Following controlling court, granted motions reconsideration, noting 19. Upon accord "unless can asserted Louisiana statute, no Gourlay." 22. Because, view, statute4 met, directed entry final judgment dismissing all them. 23. ensuing appeals en banc first instance 9-to-6 vote, Point Landing, Int'l, (1986). majority started unmalleable principle rule." 423. majority's neither nor lacking. dissent conceded provided remedied "bizarre hiatus Rules," F.2d, 428, ad hoc whole. 8 Because possible conflict views Sixth expressed Handley Indiana Michigan Electric 732 1265, 1272 (1984), certiorari decide whether, arising II 9 primary fundamental contention suit only district power derive objection Appeals, even comport Clause,5 are absence service.6 10 attempts meet variety ways. First, argues forum well, suits. Second, contends prerequisite thus Third, presses us view dissenters required found rule, should created fashioning remedy fill gap Procedure. We examine these contentions turn. III 11 jurisdictional Art. Constitution places relate subject-matter only. although III, 1, leaves "ordain establish" inferior courts, once established, process. Thus, contends, Amendment does forbid it. 12 argument itself limit correct. "The Clause. It represents restriction matter sovereignty, liberty." Insurance Corp. Ireland Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 694, 702, 2099, 2104, 492 fails, however, 13 Before satisfied. "[S]ervice procedure venue subject asserts person party served." Mississippi Publishing Murphree, 326 438, 444-445, 66 242, 245-246, 90 L.Ed. 185 (1946). means B 14 next question, then, litigation. Today, covered generally 4(f) describes where "may served."7 authorizes brought, anywhere else Rules. "most obvious reference" last provision 4(e).8 See D. Currie, Courts 373 (3d 1982). sentence speaks ability when second sentence, method, "under circumstances" prescribed rule. service, jurisdiction.9 16 "provides inhabitant state." points out recognition 6c (in Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) "wherever found"), 6d(4) attorney general, 14(d) enforcement beneficiary CFTC order, "anywhere States") 13a-1, 13a-2(4), 18(d). broad avenue mandated importance futures Nation Since right "tool enforcement," U.S., 393, S.Ct., 1847, given same "dignity" Accordingly, Neither contained We, too, decline draw inference. enacted 1982, 96 2294. That adding 22, 2322, 25, Section contrasts sharply asks rely. find significant expressly sections do new Russello 464 16, 23, 104 296, 300, 78 appear knows how authorize wants here forcefully intention. Cf. INS Hector, 479 85, 88-91, 107 379, 381-383, 93 18 House Report 1982 noted: availability of—. rights action—supplements, substitute, regulatory CFTC. Committee fully expects [it will] become necessary rely litigants policeman Act." H.R.Rep. 97-565, pt. p. 57 (1982), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News pp. 3871, 3906. unremarkable broader actions. 19 end our inquiry, date section. 22(d), 25(d). Strictly speaking, Curran. argument, equally without force. Gravois Fairchild, [1977-1980 Transfer Binder] CCH Comm.Fut.L.Rep. ¶ 20,706, 22,875 (ED La.1978) (no CEA). gave consideration Inasmuch carefully section automatically graft onto Indeed, CEA's Each Acts uses single found" entire chapter. 86, 77v, 27 902, 78aa. event, now better perspective role see reason take different position. conclude implicit 20 look sits—here, Louisiana. n. 4, supra, noted allowing effects "clearly applicable" "applies 'regularly solicits business, engages persistent course conduct, derives revenue goods used consumed services rendered, state.' " 22-23 (quoting La.Rev.Stat.Ann. 13:3201(d) (West 1968)). terms considered analysis unnecessary. us, reached statute. not. Tr. Oral Arg. 4. part C 21 act "interstices inadvertently left enactment" own 431-432. embark adventure. As matter, unclear time open fashion At common law, authority issue outside district, made general Judiciary Sept. 24, 1789, 11, 79. Robertson Railroad Labor Board, 268 619, 622-623, 45 621, 69 1119 (1925). specific extraterritorial district. bases longer valid,10 necessarily create service-of-process rules. 4(f), certain circumstances, prohibit circumstances. adequate rulemaking.11 need questions, since so. 23 consider unwise make seems likely acting authorized. past repeatedly stated grant necessary. See, e.g., Georgia Pennsylvania R. 324 439, 467-468, 65 716, 731, 89 1051 (1945). conceded, weight authority, both commentary," 433, considers Max Daetwyler Meyer, 762 290, 297 (CA3), cert. denied, 474 980, 106 383, 88 336 (1985); Wells Fargo Co. Express 556 406, 414-416 (CA9 1977); J. Moore, Lucas, H. Fink, C. Thompson, Moore's Practice 4.02[3], 4-67 Wright Miller, 1075, 302 (1969). 24 it,12 late least two reasons. concededly circumspection called going beyond what statutes rules always measures inappropriate forums deciding extend Legislative rulemaking ensures proper rule's ramifications pre-existing structure lead consistent application.13 25 Nothing impels conclusion. If here, harm interests inability litigant bring alien reach actions, aliens themselves immune Act's Also, willing enforce itself, brings there. 26 blind consequences narrowly tailored provision, applicable might ends statutes. law. responsibility, IV summary, 4(e). reject suggestion unwise, power. 28 29 ordered. Richard Friedberg Michael Stern, officers and/Northglen named three brief. Landing Fuel Corporation, six individuals, William S. Ruby M. Frank Brenda George, Dennis Joan Rosenberg. Although technically 19.6, except Georges skeletal brief adopting "as copied extenso." Brief Respondents Support 1. suit, cross-claimed third-party complaint Smith George suits, Rosenberg move effect, relevant part: "A nonresident, acts directly agent, nonresident's "(a) transacting state; "(b) contracting supply things "(c) causing injury damage offense quasi committed through omission "(d) he regularly state. ." 13:3201 1968). La.Acts, 764, 2, 1984 398, codified Supp.1987), amendments affect outcome theory, Amendment, aggregation whole, rather sits. Asahi Metal Industry Superior Cal., 480 102, 1026, 94 92 (1987), "[w]e occasion" constitutional issues raised theory. 113, *, 1032, *. method litigation; 424 (CA5 1986). provides: "All subpoena territorial rules, "Whenever order thereunder provides summons, notice, lieu circumstances manner or, therein prescribing Whenever assumes, course, "an state," Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. consented successor relating revised 1948, 62 869, express limitation serving dropped. 1391, 1401, 1693, 1695. note following 112 (1940 ed.) (tracing 1948 revision). To cited principles territoriality, force undercut International Shoe Washington, 310, 154, 95 (1945), "presence [of defendant] court" "to personam." 316, 158. continuing validity 's rationales. Petrol Shipping Greece Ministry Commerce, Purchase Directorate, 360 103, 107-109 (CA2) (discussing govern service), 385 931, 87 291, 213 (1966). Presumably widespread understanding kind desired. Fink 4.42[2.-1], 4-386 4-391 (1987) (listing statutes). 1986, 100 3556, example why construct hoc, 103 Act, 3557, ed., allow subpoenas Conference Committee, concern possibility disrupting Nation's policy objectives preference exercised circumspection. H.Conf.Rep. 99-995, 21-22 (1986), 6005. amendment declined another opportunity

Classification Label: 3