Court Opinion

ID: 9474524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:00:27.13529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:09.341554
License: Public Domain

ERVIN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
In my opinion, the contacts in this case are sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over a cause of action that “arise[s] out of or relate[s] to” these contacts. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1872, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). NANA purposefully entered into an agreement to ship its product into Virginia, and it profited from that shipment. Furthermore, it could have foreseen and easily taken steps to avoid this lawsuit. I therefore believe that NANA’s contacts with Virginia meet the minimal requirements for a constitutional assertion of personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
I.
Contacts which are insufficient to establish general jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant may be sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction over him.1 Wolf v. Richmond County Hospital Authority, 745 F.2d 904, 909 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 83, 88 L.Ed.2d 68, (1985); see also Helicopteros, 104 S.Ct. at 1872, 1874 & n. 12. The instant case, unlike many of those in which jurisdiction has been denied, see, e.g., Helicopteros, 104 S.Ct. 1868; World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980); Wolf, 745 F.2d 904, involves an exercise of specific jurisdiction. The majority erred in its failure to note this distinction, and in its implicit application of the “continuous and systematic” test for general jurisdiction to the contacts required in this case.
In order for specific personal jurisdiction to be constitutional, NANA’s contacts do not have to rise to the “continuous and systematic” level required for general jurisdiction. Helicopteros, 104 S.Ct. at 1873. Rather, NANA need only have “ ‘fair warning that a particular activity may subject [it] to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign.’ ” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2182, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 218, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2587, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment)). “Fair warning” exists when a defendant has “ ‘purposefully directed’ his activities at residents of the forum,” id. (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, 465 U.S. 770, 774, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 1478, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984)), and the litigation results from injuries arising out of those activities. Id. The latter require*1131ment is obviously met by this lawsuit. The facts, properly construed, demonstrate that NANA’s contacts also meet the “purposeful direction” requirement.
II.
In its portrayal of NANA’s contacts with Virginia as constitutionally inadequate, the majority misinterprets the situation surrounding the spoiled Virginia shipment. Chung did initially contact NANA and fly to Alaska to pick up the horn personally. If all had gone as planned, NANA would have followed its regular delivery practice and avoided its frequent problems of spoiled horn and inadequate insurance. See Deposition of John W. Schaeffer, President of NANA Corporation, Joint Appendix at 33 (Sept. 8, 1984) (delivery practice designed to limit NANA’s responsibility for spoiled shipments). Under its regular delivery scheme, NANA’s contacts with Virginia would arguably have been no more than “ ‘fortuitous’ ” and therefore insufficient to support an assertion of jurisdiction. See Majority Opinion, supra at 1128.
When Chung was preparing to leave Alaska, however, the situation changed. Chung, who had paid in full for 500 pounds of horn, expected delivery in full at the Nome Airport on June 14, 1982. NANA, however, was unable to meet its obligation and deliver on time. NANA then abandoned its regular delivery practice and voluntarily entered into a new agreement with Chung. Under this second agreement, NANA took responsibility for the safe arrival of 380 pounds of horn in Virginia.
This is not a case in which the 380 pounds of horn ended up in Virginia because of Chung’s unilateral activity. Cf. World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 295-99, Í00 S.Ct. at 566-68. In making the second agreement, NANA knowingly and purposefully availed itself of the privilege of shipping its product to a Virginian in Virginia. The Supreme Court recently stated that “even a single act can support jurisdiction” if the act has a “ ‘substantial connection’ ” with the forum. Burger King, 105 S.Ct. at 2184 n. 18 (quoting McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223, 78 S.Ct. 199, 201, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957)). It is difficult to understand how a conscious decision to change an existing agreement and to alter a company’s routine by shipping a specific batch of horn to a particular individual located in Virginia is not substantially connected with Virginia. Cf. McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957) (Texas corporation’s reinsurance of one individual in California, through the assumption of the obligations of an Arizona corporation, was sufficient connection for the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction in California).
Contrary to the majority, I also believe that this litigation meets World-Wide Volkswagen’s “foreseeability” test for minimum contacts. See World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 296-97, 100 S.Ct. at 566-67. Testimony from NANA’s President indicates an awareness of and previous experience with the specific problems that arose in this case. See Deposition of John W. Schaeffer, supra p. 17. NANA purposefully directed its activity toward Virginia and should have “reasonably anticipate^] being haled into court there.” World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 297, 100 S.Ct. at 567. Furthermore, this case meets the Supreme Court’s requirement that a defendant be able to alleviate the risk of litigating in an out-of-state forum. See id. NANA could simply have insured the package and thereby covered the loss. Alternatively, it could have refused to ship the horn to Virginia and refunded Chung’s payment for 380 pounds. It could have insisted that Chung remain in Alaska to collect the horn or appoint an agent in Nome to take delivery and shipment responsibility for him. Given these options, the majority’s assertion, supra at 1128, that “NANA appears to have done everything possible to confine its United States business to its home state of Alaska during this transaction” is plainly inaccurate.
In its second agreement with Chung, NANA abandoned its usual policies and *1132willingly shipped its product into Virginia. In so doing, it purposefully directed its activity to Virginia, thereby meeting the minimum contacts requirement for Virginia’s assertion of specific personal jurisdiction.
III.
Once minimum contacts are established, this court must consider whether an assertion of personal jurisdiction comports with “ ‘fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Burger King, 105 S.Ct. at 2184 (quoting International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320, 66 S.Ct. 154, 160, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)). Some of the factors appropriately considered in this analysis are Virginia’s interest in adjudicating this dispute and Chung’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief. Id. Virginia’s interest lies both in ensuring that the products supplied to its citizens are not worthless and in “providing effective means of redress for its residents.” McGee, 355 U.S. at 223, 78 S.Ct. at 201. Chung’s interest in litigating in his home state is obvious. Given these factors, assertion of personal jurisdiction in Virginia seems appropriate.
One factor, the burden on NANA of defending in Virginia, does tend to undermine the assertion of jurisdiction. See Burger King, 105 S.Ct. at 2184. A defendant who has purposefully directed his activities toward Virginia, however, “must present a compelling case” in order to escape personal jurisdiction. Id. at 2185. Mere claims of distance and inconvenience are properly handled in a motion for a change of venue, not a denial of personal jurisdiction. Id. In fact, the Supreme Court has required defendants to travel from Texas to California, see McGee, 355 U.S. at 224, 78 S.Ct. at 201, and from Michigan to Florida, see Burger King, 105 S.Ct. at 2188, to defend. The similar, although slightly more severe, complaints of distance and travel in this case simply do not rise to the level of unconstitutional burdensomeness. NANA’s argument is not sufficiently compelling to make an otherwise appropriate assertion of personal jurisdiction unconstitutional.
As the foregoing discussion illustrates, NANA purposefully directed its actions toward Virginia, thereby establishing constitutionally sufficient minimum contacts with that state. No compelling circumstances make this otherwise appropriate exercise of personal jurisdiction unreasonable. The district court’s assertion of specific personal jurisdiction over NANA was, therefore, proper. Consequently, I respectfully dissent.

. “General jurisdiction" is the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a suit not arising out of or related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum. Helicópteros, 104 S.Ct. at 1872 n. 9. "Specific jurisdiction" is the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a suit that does arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum. Id. at 1872 n. 8.