Court Opinion

ID: 9692816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:07:07.482551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:29:21.329719
License: Public Domain

HARRIS, Associate Judge
(dissenting) :
In my opinion, the result reached by the majority is contrary to the well-reasoned rationale of previous decisions in this jurisdiction, and impermissibly abridges two rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
We are dealing with a deceptively simple statutory provision. Section 13-423 of the District of Columbia Code provides in part:
(a) A District of Columbia court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a claim for relief arising from the person’s—
(1) transacting any business in the District of Columbia;
This portion of our present long-arm statute differs somewhat from the predecessor which existed when several earlier cases (to be cited below) were decided. Basically, the provision before hs has two features which are different from those in the earlier § 13-103 of the Code. First, the term “doing business” was amended to “transacting any business”, thereby removing any need for a plaintiff to demonstrate a continuing course of business conduct in this jurisdiction by a defendant. Second, it was made explicit that a party could become subject to in personam jurisdiction by transacting business here through an agent, as well as directly.
The statute could subject appellees to in personam jurisdiction here only if they were “transacting any business” in the District of Columbia, either “directly or by an agent.” The majority appears to reach the conclusion that both appellees were transacting business here directly, although neither has an office or even an employee in the District of Columbia, and although neither makes any sales here. It is true that appellant was acting as Penn Dye’s agent at least to some degree in representing it before the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).1 The root question, however, is whether appellant’s activities in this jurisdiction constituted the transacting of business here by the appellees. In my judgment, they did not.2
Appellant was an independent contractor, correctly described by the majority as a “District corporation engaged in providing engineering consulting services”. Unquestionably it did transact business here. However, that fact, standing alone, provides no basis for subjecting appellees to the jurisdiction of our courts. It is a defendant, not a plaintiff, who must be found *396to be engaged in a purposeful business activity within a jurisdiction. See Ajax Realty Corp. v. J. F. Zook, Inc., 493 F.2d 818, 820-21 (4th Cir. 1972); Piracci v. New York City Employees’ Retirement System, 321 F.Supp. 1067 (D.Md.1971); cf. Groom v. Margulies, 257 Md. 691, 265 A.2d 249 (1970); John G. Kolbe, Inc. v. Chromodern Chair Co., 211 Va. 736, 180 S.E.2d 664 (1971).
Appellant’s role was to aid appellees in seeking a grant from the EPA for Penn Dye. In holding that such activity alone permits suit here against the nonresident appellees, the majority runs afoul of the rationale of earlier decisions in the District of Columbia. Under the prior “doing business” statute, our courts consistently held that in personam jurisdiction could not be exercised, even over a corporation which had employees and an office in the District of Columbia, as long as the exclusive purpose of the party’s acitivities here was dealing with federal instrumentalities. Weisblatt v. United Aircraft Corp., D.Mun.App., 134 A.2d 713 (1957); Traher v. De Havilland Aircraft of Canada, Ltd., 111 U.S.App.D.C. 33, 294 F.2d 229 (1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 954, 82 S.Ct. 397, 7 L.Ed.2d 387 (1962); Mueller Brass Co. v. Alexander Milburn Co., 80 U.S.App.D.C. 274, 152 F.2d 142 (1945).
We may assume that Congress legislated with care when it enacted the present long-arm statute. See Palmore v. United States, 411 U.S. 389, 395, 93 S.Ct. 1670, 36 L.Ed.2d 342 (1973). Assuredly it was aware of the established line of cases providing a federal government contact exception to the concept of “doing business” for purposes of in personam jurisdiction. Had Congress wished to broaden the statute to encompass such an activity, it could have sought to do so.3 It did not. In my view, the principle first announced in the Mueller Brass decision remains sound, and should be adopted by us with respect to the present statute. Cf. Margoles v. Johns, 157 U.S.App.D.C. 209, 219, 483 F.2d 1212, 1222 (1973).
The majority seeks to distinguish Mueller Brass by stating that “in this case, the claim for relief arises from the foreign corporation’s activities in the District.” That effort fails, for two reasons. First, the claim did not arise from “the foreign corporation’s activities in the District”; it arose from the appellant’s activities here on behalf of one of the foreign corporations. Second, from a jurisdictional standpoint, we are concerned with whether or not the appellees themselves were transacting business in the District of Columbia. If a defendant does not transact business here, either directly or by an agent, there can be no in personam jurisdiction.4 Mueller Brass and its progeny held that in personam jurisdiction may not be exercised over a corporation whose sole contact in the District of Columbia is with the federal government. Since that has been held to be true where a foreign corporation has employees and an office here, it should be true a fortiori where there is no employee and no office, and where the sole contact with the federal government is made by a local independent contractor. See Read v. LaSalle Extension University, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 177, 156 F.2d 575 (1946). See also Orton v. Woods Oil & Gas Co., 249 F.2d 198 (7th Cir. 1957).
Even if it be assumed, arguendo, that appellees’ utilization of appellant to deal with a federal agency somehow did consti*397tute transacting business here by the appellees, I am of the opinion that there are two constitutional infirmities in the majority’s result. First, I believe that appellees’ rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment are violated by the majority’s holding.5 I have stated my conviction that it was the appellant, not the appellees, who transacted business in the District of Columbia. Relevant is the following statement of the Supreme Court in Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1239, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958):
The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State. The application of that rule will vary with the quality and nature of the defendant’s activity, but it 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.
See also International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).
Were the appellees — in contradistinction to appellant — “conducting activities within” the District of Columbia? They were not. Did appellees invoke “the benefits and protections of [the] laws” of the District of Columbia? They did not. When one considers the broad range of long-arm cases, it is seen that due process requirements quite properly are satisfied rather readily when a nonresident defendant is a seller of goods or services within a particular jurisdiction, but nowhere near so readily when a nonresident defendant is merely a buyer. Appellant was a seller operating within the District of Columbia, pursuant to a contract executed elsewhere, on behalf of foreign corporations; appel-lees did no more than employ the services of a local independent contractor. In such a situation, due process concepts preclude the exercise of in personam jurisdiction over a defendant. See, e. g., E. R. Callender Printing Co. v. District Court, 510 P.2d 889 (Colo.1973) (enbanc).
The majority’s result finds scant support in relevant authorities.6 The key to the decision appears to lie in the following statement in the majority opinion:
The District, moreover, has a manifest interest in providing a forum for its residents when their clients refuse to pay fees owed for services performed in the District. These residents would be at a disadvantage if they had to follow their clients to other jurisdictions in order to bring suit for their fees.
I cannot concur in such a subjective basis for a decision which I believe to be contrary to law. Under the majority’s decision, every non-District of Columbia resident which employs one of our city’s hundreds of consulting firms — including law firms — to deal with the federal government thereby will subject itself to the jurisdiction of our courts for a claim arising therefrom. True, such a rule will make it easier for a District of Columbia firm to sue a nonresident client over a fee dispute, but at what overall price ?
*398I share the following views expressed in Anderson v. Shiflett, 435 F.2d 1036, 1038 (10th Cir. 1971) :
We have here a single, isolated transaction in the form of a contract for personal service. The totality of the contacts with Oklahoma was the performance of certain phases of the work at the plaintiff’s Oklahoma City office. * * * To support jurisdiction, the plaintiff relies on his own unilateral activities. Under the decision in Hanson v. Denckla this is not enough. To become subject to Oklahoma jurisdiction, the defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of doing business in that state and thereby invoke the benefits and protections of its laws. The record before us does not satisfy this requirement. Instead, it shows no more than the unilateral performance of contracted personal service in the forum. The idea that such performance alone can subject the employer to the jurisdiction of the forum has frightening consequences.
In conclusion, I note the second constitutional infirmity which I find in the majority’s decision. The First Amendment provides : “Congress shall make no law . abridging . . . the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Today the majority holds that any nonresident who hires an independent contractor in the District of Columbia to petition the federal government on his behalf thereby becomes subject to suit in this jurisdiction on the basis of transacting business here. If Congress had intended such a result in enacting the present long-arm provision, I believe the statute would be unconstitutional as effecting an undue abridgment of the exercise of that First Amendment right. Cf. Margoles v. Johns, supra 157 U.S.App.D.C., at 219, 483 F.2d at 1222.
I would affirm the trial court’s dismissal of appellant’s claim, and so respectfully dissent.

. Ill concluding that there is in personam jurisdiction over both appellees, the majority disregards the significant differences between their respective roles. Lockwood Greene is a South Carolina engineering firm which was engaged by Penn Dye. The federal assistance which was sought was for Penn Dye, not for Lockwood Greene. The exercise of jurisdiction over Lockwood Greene thus is even more strained than is that over Penn Dye.

. My position on this point appears indirectly to be concurred in by the majority. It characterizes appellees’ role in this transaction as having “caused appellant to carry on business activities in the District on their behalf.” That statement strikes me as being inconsistent with appellees’ transacting business here.

. However, I express below my reasons for believing that had Congress sought to make such an extension of the concept of long-arm jurisdiction, the result would have been unconstitutional.

. It should be mentioned that we are dealing here only with in personam jurisdiction based upon transacting business in the District of Columbia. Section 13-423 (a) provides five other bases for long-arm jurisdiction over nonresidents, none of which is relevant to this case.

. The great majority of cases considering the due process aspects of long-arm jurisdiction deal with the Fourteenth Amendment, which is applicable to the states. It has been held that the Fifth Amendment establishes comparable rights within the District of Columbia. See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499, 74 S.Ct. 693, 98 L.Ed. 884 (1954).

. The majority does place considerable reliance upon McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957). However, that decision is of little relevance, for the California long-arm statute involved was specific in seeking to obtain jurisdiction over out-of-state insurance companies with policy holders in California.