Court Opinion

ID: 9473252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:24:13.636598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:24.826263
License: Public Domain

SETH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent.
The majority relies entirely on Calder v. Jones, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804, but in my view we have only half the elements relied on by the Court in Calder. There, the opinion places emphasis on the fact that the story concerned what the plaintiff did in California. Thus: “The allegedly libelous story concerned the California activities of a California resident.” The Court also stated that the “article was drawn from California sources.” The Court then stated the two elements:
“In sum, California is the focal point both of the story and of the harm suffered. Jurisdiction over petitioners is therefore proper in California based on the ‘effects’ of their Florida conduct in California. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 [100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490],...”
The Court so applies the “effects” theory where both “the focal point ... of the story and of the harm” was in California.
In the case before us the letter was, of course, sent to Colorado but the “focal” point of the story was Nebraska. The letter was about what had taken place in Nebraska not Colorado. The story was certainly not drawn from Colorado sources. The action was initiated by plaintiff. We thus have but half a Calder. The opinion in Calder quotes and relies on the usual minimum contact cases with no comment or criticism. It states at the outset of the opinion of the defendant:
“It publishes a national weekly newspaper with a total circulation of over 5 million.' About 600,000 of those copies, almost twice the level of the next highest State, are sold in California."
The Court in a footnote quoted the exact circulation figures for the issue, 5,292,200 total and 604,431 in California. The Court had stated at the outset that:
“The article was published in a national magazine with a large circulation in California.”
The opinion contains a mixture of the minimum contact facts, minimum contact cases, and the “effects” theory. Thus it should be assumed that the “effects” basis referred to by the Court is operative in the context of the minimum contacts doctrine *246as pressed in the ease therein quoted, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559. Thus “the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” See also our cases such as Premier Corp. v. Newsom, 620 F.2d 219 (10th Cir.), and Anderson v. Shiflett, 435 F.2d 1036 (10th Cir.), where in a specific jurisdiction case we required the minimum contact. See also the unilateral activity case, Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283. The unilateral activity of plaintiff was the solicitation in Colorado of the letter of recommendation from defendant in Nebraska. This action necessarily drew the response from defendant to Colorado. See also Anderson v. Shiflett, 435 F.2d 1036 (10th Cir.).
Again, the “story” was about what had taken place in Nebraska not Colorado. The only connection or contact the defendant had with Colorado was the letter he sent to the Colorado hospital in response to its request that he express an opinion as to the plaintiff’s “medical knowledge, technical proficiency,” and other qualifications. The plaintiff acknowledges that defendant had a duty to reply and that the hospital solicited the information. It is apparent that this solicitation can also be attributed to the plaintiff.
Again, the letter in issue was a required answer to the inquiry as to Dr. Burt’s performance as an orthopedic resident in Nebraska, thus was not unsolicited or gratuitously made. Instead, the action was initiated by plaintiff. The majority opinion at page 245 quotes from Calder (104 S.Ct. 1482, at 1487), as to the brunt of the injury and impact on respondent. However, the sentence quoted in part continued with “and in which the National Enquirer has its largest circulation.” The Court then continued:
“Under the circumstances, petitioners must ‘reasonably anticipate being haled into court there’ to answer for the truth of the statements made in their article.”
“Under these circumstances” thus includes the extent of the circulation in California and thus the contacts of defendants. The traditional cases were quoted following the above quotation. Again, we have the “contact” ingredient or element of what the Court calls the “impact.” It is an impact theory but in a minimum contact context.
The trial court in its evaluation of the facts found that there was no factual basis for in personam jurisdiction over the plaintiff. It must be assumed that this included all the elements and thus a determination that the defendant could not anticipate being haled into court in Colorado. The trial court’s findings are presumed to be correct. The jurisdictional issue requires and is based on an evaluation of the facts.
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790, was decided on the same day as was Calder. The contacts aspect was treated at some length. The Court referred to the regular monthly sales of thousands of magazines in New Hampshire and said this “cannot by any stretch of the imagination be characterized as random, isolated, or fortuitous.” Thus there were sufficient “minimum contacts” between defendant and the State to meet due process requirements, quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559. The Court in Keeton was concerned with the relationship of the plaintiff to the forum State and the First Amendment issue. However, on the contacts element the Court said of the magazine:
“But respondent is carrying on a ‘part of its general business’ in New Hampshire, and that is sufficient to support jurisdiction when the cause of action arises out of the very activity being conducted, in part, in New Hampshire.”
The Court said also that the harm was done in New Hampshire and there is “no justification” for restricting libel actions to defendant’s forum, and:
“The victim of a libel, like the victim of any other tort, may choose to bring suit in any forum with which the defendant has ‘certain minimum contacts ... such *247that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 [61 S.Ct. 339, 342, 85 L.Ed. 278].’ ”
(The Court there quoted International Shoe.)
Thus the Court in Keeton in what appears to be a specific jurisdictional case or impact case includes the minimum contact doctrine. Again, we must assume that the “impact” theory is appropriate when found in the context of minimum contacts.
As the Court did in Calder and Keeton, and in our earlier cases, the contacts of the plaintiff with the forum State must be examined. This was again emphasized by the majority and the dissent in Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404, which followed Keeton and Calder.
In a challenge to in personam jurisdiction the plaintiff has the burden of showing the basis for jurisdiction. This is not a heavy burden, but reliance cannot be placed on unsupported allegations in the complaint. These allegations are not taken as true under these circumstances in view of the burden.
In 2 Moore’s Federal Practice 114.41 — 1[3], at 4-473 (2d ed.), the authors state:
“On appeal, the trial court’s findings on the jurisdictional question are presumptively correct and will be set aside only if clearly erroneous. Even where the trial court reached its decision on the basis of affidavits and other documentary evidence, and did not weigh conflicting evidence or evaluate witness credibility, the standard of review on appeal is the same. The court on appeal will not draw its own inferences and conclusions from the facts in the record.”
A footnote quotes our Quarles v. Fuqua Industries, Inc., 504 F.2d 1358 (10th Cir.).
The trial judge’s evaluation of the facts developed by the affidavits should be considered as any other fact determination. The weighing of the facts is necessary in the determination of jurisdiction. Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 56 L.Ed.2d 132.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.