Court Opinion

ID: 9457357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:19:33.633798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:19.117803
License: Public Domain

HAMLIN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
I respectfully dissent.
In Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 251, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1238, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1957), the Supreme Court in discussing the burden of defending in a foreign jurisdiction stated: “However minimal the burden of defending in a foreign tribunal, a defendant may not be called upon to do so unless he has had the ‘minimal contacts’ with that State that are a prerequisite to its exercise of power over him. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).” The Court further stated “ * * * 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.” 357 U.S. at 253, 78 S.Ct. at 1240.
In this case I find no such minimal contacts at all. The ship was built in Texas by a Texas company, for a Texas company, according to its design, and delivered and paid for in Texas. There is no clear evidence that defendant-petitioner Burton Shipyard was informed, or knew, that it was to be taken to California waters.1
*642The eases relied upon, in the majority opinion are distinguishable.2 There are no facts, in my opinion, in this case similar to those found in the cases relied upon in the majority opinion.
I would grant the writ.

. The only evidence on this point (which to mo is insufficient) is as follows :
“Q. Approximately how many boats has your company built for the purposes of offshore oil exploration?
“A. That is a hard question to answer.
“Q. Can you give us an approximate number?
“A. Two hundred.
*642“Q. And were most of these sold to customers who used them in the Gulf?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Any of them, to your knowledge, used for offshore exploration in California?
“A. There are some over there. There is some in Alaska, Africa.”

. In Duple, supra, the manufacturer knew that the bus it manufactured was to be sent to and used in Hawaii.
In Buckeye Boiler, supra, the Supreme Court of California stated the general rule, as follows:
A defendant not literally ‘present’ in the forum state may not be required to defend itself in that state’s tribunals unless the ‘quality and nature of the defendant’s activity’ in relation to the particular cause of action makes it fair to do so. (Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1240, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283; McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223; Henry R. Jahn & Son v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.2d 855, 860, 323 P.2d 437.) 80 Cal.Rptr. at 117, 458 P.2d at 61.
The court, in holding that California courts had jurisdiction, pointed out:
In the present case, it is clear that defendant derives substantial economic benefit from the sale and use of its products in California; it currently derives about $30,000 annually in gross sales revenues from its direct sales of certain pressure tanks to the Cochin Manufacturing Company plant in South San Francisco. On the basis of these sales alone, defendant is purposefully engaging in economic activity within California as a matter of ‘commercial actuality.’ Id., 80 Cal.Rptr. at 121, 458 P.2d at 65.
In International Shoe, supra, the appellant’s salesmen in the forum state conducted regular and systematic solicitations of orders, resulting in a continuous flow of appellant’s product into the state.
In McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., supra, the insurance contract was delivered in California, the premiums were mailed from there, and the insured was a resident of that state when he died.