Facts
- Dennis Burnham (domiciled in New Jersey) and Francie Burnham separated; Francie moved to California with the children.
- Dennis filed a New Jersey divorce action that did not seek support or property division.
- Francie filed a California divorce action in Marin County.
- During a brief trip to California for business and to visit his children, Dennis was personally served in Marin County with a summons and Francie’s divorce petition while dropping off the children at Francie’s home.
- Dennis made a special appearance in California and moved to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
- Whether the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause permits a state court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who is personally served while temporarily present in the state, even when the suit is unrelated to the defendant’s in-state activities.
Decision
- The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the exercise of personal jurisdiction by California courts.
- The Court unanimously held that due process allows jurisdiction over a nonresident personally served while temporarily in the forum state, even if the claim is unrelated to the defendant’s activities there.
- No single majority opinion supplied a single rationale:
- A plurality treated historical acceptance of “tag” jurisdiction as sufficient to satisfy due process.
- A concurrence would assess transient service under modern minimum-contacts and fairness analysis, concluding it is ordinarily fair when presence is voluntary.
- Separate concurrences agreed the case could be resolved without choosing a comprehensive theory for all jurisdiction questions.
Legal Principles
- Personal service on an individual who is voluntarily and physically present in the forum state is a constitutionally sufficient basis for in personam jurisdiction (“tag” or transient jurisdiction).
- International Shoe’s minimum-contacts framework does not eliminate historically recognized bases of jurisdiction where the defendant is physically present and served in the forum.
- Traditional practice and the absence of unfairness strongly support the constitutionality of transient jurisdiction; voluntary entry into the forum also supports foreseeability of being sued there.
Conclusion
A state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident based solely on in-state personal service during the defendant’s temporary, voluntary presence, even when the claim does not arise from the defendant’s forum contacts.