## Facts

- Joseph DeJames, a New Jersey longshoreman, was injured while working aboard the M.V. *Magnificence Venture* while it was moored in Camden, New Jersey.
- DeJames sued multiple defendants connected to the vessel, including Magnificence Carriers, Inc., Venture Shipping (Managers) Ltd., Nippon Yusen Kaisha, and Hitachi Shipbuilding & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Hitachi).
- The appeal concerned only Hitachi, a Japanese corporation that had performed conversion work on the vessel in Japan (converting it from a bulk carrier into an automobile carrier).
- Hitachi performed all conversion work at its shipyard in Japan and had no office, agents, property, or direct business operations in New Jersey.
- After the vessel left Japan, Hitachi had no role in its voyages or U.S. port calls.
- DeJames alleged the conversion work was defective and that the defect caused his injury in New Jersey.
- DeJames served Hitachi in Japan using procedures under the Hague Service Convention.
- Hitachi moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (and also challenged service); the district court dismissed the claims against Hitachi and entered judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) to permit an immediate appeal while claims against other defendants continued.

## Issues

1. In an admiralty tort case, may a federal court assert personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant by aggregating the defendant’s contacts with the United States as a whole when service is accomplished through the forum state’s long-arm rule?
2. Did Hitachi have sufficient minimum contacts with New Jersey—through its Japan-based conversion work and the vessel’s later presence and earnings in U.S. ports—to satisfy due process for in personam jurisdiction?
3. Does service made pursuant to the Hague Service Convention supply a basis for personal jurisdiction when minimum contacts with the forum state are absent?

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the claims against Hitachi for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court held that, absent a federal statute authorizing nationwide service of process for this admiralty claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 required the court to look to New Jersey’s long-arm reach, and thus to minimum contacts with New Jersey rather than nationwide contacts.
- The court concluded Hitachi’s conduct—conversion work performed entirely in Japan, with no forum-directed activity toward New Jersey—did not constitute purposeful availment of New Jersey, even if it was foreseeable the vessel might call at New Jersey ports.
- The court rejected the argument that indirect economic consequences (such as the ship’s earning revenue from U.S. ports) converted Hitachi’s Japan-based work into New Jersey contacts.
- The court further noted that hauling Hitachi into New Jersey would be unfair given the location of witnesses, documents, and operations in Japan.
- Proper service under the Hague Service Convention addressed the method of service but did not create personal jurisdiction in the absence of constitutionally sufficient contacts.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court’s personal jurisdiction depends on a valid authorization for service of process; without a federal statute providing nationwide service, the court’s reach generally matches the forum state’s long-arm reach through Rule 4.
- When jurisdiction is tied to the forum state’s long-arm mechanism, due process focuses on the defendant’s contacts with that state, not with the United States as a whole.
- Minimum contacts require purposeful availment: the defendant must engage in conduct that makes it reasonable to expect being sued in the forum.
- Foreseeability that a product or vessel will enter the forum, standing alone, does not establish purposeful forum contact when the defendant’s relevant acts occurred elsewhere and the forum entry results from others’ choices.
- Even where some connection exists, courts consider fairness (burden on the defendant, location of proof, and related factors) when deciding whether exercising jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice.
- Compliance with the Hague Service Convention concerns the manner of service and does not substitute for the separate requirement that the forum have adjudicatory authority over the defendant.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that New Jersey could not exercise personal jurisdiction over Hitachi for an alleged defect arising from ship-conversion work performed entirely in Japan because, without a federal statute authorizing nationwide service in this admiralty action, jurisdiction depended on New Jersey’s long-arm reach and Hitachi lacked the minimum contacts with New Jersey required by due process; valid Hague Convention service did not cure that defect.


DeJames v. Magnificence Carriers, Inc., 654 F.2d 280 (3d Cir. 1981).