## Facts

- Michael L. Cartwright, an airline baggage handler, alleged he was injured while exiting the baggage compartment of an airplane in Georgia.
- Cartwright claimed the airplane’s cargo compartment was negligently designed and defective, and that the defect caused his injuries.
- The airplane was manufactured in the Netherlands by Fokker Aircraft B.V. (Dutch manufacturer) and initially sold in the Netherlands to its American subsidiary, Fokker Aircraft U.S.A., Inc.
- Cartwright sued Fokker Aircraft U.S.A., Inc., Fokker Aircraft B.V., and a related Dutch entity in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
- Fokker Aircraft B.V. was not licensed to do business in Georgia and did not directly transact or solicit business there; it had no Georgia office, employees, or real property.
- Fokker Aircraft B.V. advertised in national magazines and used Fokker Aircraft U.S.A., Inc. to provide marketing and sales services in the United States.
- Fokker Aircraft U.S.A., Inc. was licensed to do business in Georgia and operated a Georgia warehouse storing spare parts owned by Fokker Aircraft B.V.
- Pretrial motions addressed interlocutory appeal, personal jurisdiction over the Dutch manufacturer, and whether service on the Dutch manufacturer was sufficient under international service rules.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should amend its prior order to certify an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) concerning denial of Fokker Aircraft U.S.A., Inc.’s motion to dismiss for insufficiency of process.
2. Whether Georgia’s long-arm statute and federal due process permitted the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Fokker Aircraft B.V. for an alleged design-defect injury occurring in Georgia.
3. Whether Cartwright’s attempted service of process on Fokker Aircraft B.V. was sufficient, given the Hague Service Convention’s requirements for serving a Dutch corporation.

## Decision

- The court denied Fokker Aircraft U.S.A., Inc.’s motion to amend the prior order to permit interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
- The court denied Fokker Aircraft B.V.’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court concluded that service on Fokker Aircraft B.V. was not shown to comply with the Hague Service Convention and, rather than ending the case on that basis, required proper service consistent with the Convention.

## Legal Principles

- Interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is available only when (1) the order involves a controlling question of law, (2) there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and (3) an immediate appeal may materially advance termination of the litigation.
- When binding circuit authority resolves the legal question, there is no substantial ground for difference of opinion, and § 1292(b) certification is not warranted.
- A federal court sitting in diversity (or exercising supplemental jurisdiction) assesses personal jurisdiction by applying (1) the forum state’s long-arm statute and (2) due process (minimum contacts and fair play).
- For a foreign manufacturer, purposeful contact with the forum may be shown when the manufacturer uses a U.S. subsidiary as its marketing and sales channel, and the manufacturer’s product is placed into U.S. commerce with the expectation it will be used in the forum state and the claim arises from that product.
- Due process is satisfied when the defendant’s forum-related conduct makes it reasonable to anticipate being sued there, and exercising jurisdiction is fair in light of the parties’ ties, the forum’s interest, and the location of the injury.
- Service on a foreign defendant located in a signatory country is governed by the Hague Service Convention where applicable; a plaintiff must use a Convention-approved method (such as service through the designated Central Authority) unless another Convention-permitted method is properly used.
- When service is defective but the court has personal jurisdiction, the usual remedy is to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to perfect service rather than to dispose of the action solely for a curable service defect.

## Conclusion

The court refused to certify an interlocutory appeal of the process ruling because controlling Eleventh Circuit law left no meaningful dispute on the legal question, held that Georgia could exercise personal jurisdiction over the Dutch aircraft manufacturer based on its distribution and U.S.-subsidiary sales structure tied to Georgia and an injury occurring there, and determined that service on the Dutch manufacturer had to be completed using a Hague Service Convention-compliant method.


Cartwright v. Fokker Aircraft U.S.A., Inc., 713 F. Supp. 389 (1988)