Court Opinion

ID: 9565756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:26:57.10537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:52.660741
License: Public Domain

BYBEE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:
I fully agree with Judge Seabright’s opinion with respect to the timeliness of Menken’s appeal. I also concur in the majority’s judgment with respect to personal jurisdiction: Menken has alleged sufficient facts that, if true, show that Tomerlin “ ‘purposefully directed’ [her] activities” at Menken in Arizona, and “the litigation results from alleged injuries that ‘arise out of or relate to’ those activities.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984), and Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984)). To my mind, that should end the inquiry.
I recognize that the Supreme Court has stated that “[o]nce it has been decided that a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum State, these contacts may be considered in light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with ‘fair play and substantial justice,’ ” Burger King, 471 U.S. at 476, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90
L.Ed. 95 (1945)), and that the Court has listed several considerations. These considerations, the Court said, “sometimes serve to establish the reasonableness of jurisdiction upon a lesser showing of minimum contacts than would otherwise be required” and may also “defeat the reasonableness of jurisdiction even if the defendant has purposefully engaged in forum activities.” Id. at 477, 105 S.Ct. 2174. We have virtually codified these considerations into seven numbered “reasonableness” factors. See, e.g., CE Distrib., LLC v. New Sensor Corp., 380 F.3d 1107, 1110 (9th Cir.2004); Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1132 (9th Cir.2003); Caruth v. Int’l Psychoanalytical Ass’n, 59 F.3d 126, 128-29 (9th Cir.1995); Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Indus., 11 F.3d 1482, 1487-88 (9th Cir.1993). Judge Seabright’s opinion faithfully considers each of these factors.
My objection is that we can take up these “reasonableness” factors only after we have already established that the defendant purposefully established minimum contacts with the forum, and that the contacts are related to the cause of action. I do not see how, having made this determination, the forum’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant is subject to defeasance just because we think that litigation in the forum might be burdensome to the defendant, or that there might be a more convenient forum, or that the forum might not have as great an interest in resolving the litigation as some other forum. None of these factors goes to the question of the forum’s power over the defendant — the right to issue a judgment that is enforceable not only in the forum’s own courts, but also in the courts of every other State. See U.S. Const, art. IV, § 1 (Full Faith and Credit Clause).
*1063These “reasonableness” factors are better suited to claims of forum non conveniens, which is also based on “considerations of convenience, fairness, and judicial economy.” Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 1187, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007).1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.”). Indeed, the seven reasonableness factors parallel the private and public interests that a district court must weigh when considering a claim of forum non conveniens. See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947).2
I recognize that I am swimming against the tide, but I refuse to proceed without making my objections known. I respectfully concur in the opinion in part, and I fully concur in the judgment.

. The only case in which the Supreme Court has held that these factors determined the question of personal jurisdiction was in a suit between two foreign corporations in which the Court divided evenly over whether the minimum contacts were sufficient. See Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987). The defendant might just as easily have invoked forum non conveniens. See Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp.,-U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007); Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981).

. Private factors in the forum non conveniens balancing test include; "relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Gulf Oil Corp., 330 U.S. at 508, 67 S.Ct. 839. Public factors include: "administrative difficulties from court congestion; the 'local interest in having localized controversies decided at home’; the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law that must govern the action; the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the application of foreign law; and the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty.” Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 241, 102 S.Ct. 252 (quoting Gulf Oil Corp., 330 U.S. at 509, 67 S.Ct. 839).