## Facts

- Direct and indirect purchasers of automotive refinishing paint filed federal antitrust suits against multiple paint manufacturers, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the United States.
- The defendants included two German corporations, BASF Aktiengesellschaft and BASF Coatings Aktiengesellschaft (collectively, BASF).
- The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the cases and transferred them to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- BASF argued it lacked a Pennsylvania presence: it was not incorporated in Pennsylvania and did not maintain offices, facilities, or automotive-refinishing-paint sales there.
- BASF moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- BASF also sought a protective order limiting jurisdictional discovery, contending that discovery should proceed first through the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters because the United States and Germany are signatories.
- BASF and supporting German interests argued that compelling discovery in the United States under the Federal Rules would conflict with Germany’s view that evidence gathering is a judicial function and would intrude on German sovereign interests.
- The district court denied BASF’s motions to dismiss and denied the protective order, concluding that § 12 of the Clayton Act authorizes worldwide service of process apart from its venue language, that personal jurisdiction could be assessed by BASF’s contacts with the United States as a whole, and that the Hague Convention procedures were not a mandatory first step for jurisdictional discovery.
- The district court certified the rulings for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), and the Third Circuit accepted the appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether § 12 of the Clayton Act permits worldwide service of process on foreign corporate defendants without requiring that venue also satisfy § 12’s special venue clause.
2. Whether, when personal jurisdiction is asserted through a federal statute authorizing nationwide/worldwide service of process, due process permits jurisdiction to be based on the defendant’s contacts with the United States as a whole rather than only contacts with the forum state.
3. Whether a district court may allow jurisdictional discovery from foreign defendants under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring initial use of the Hague Evidence Convention procedures.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of BASF’s motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of BASF’s motion for a protective order that would have required Hague Convention procedures as the initial method for jurisdictional discovery.
- The court held that § 12’s authorization of worldwide service of process is not conditioned on meeting § 12’s venue provision; service under § 12 may be used so long as venue is proper under an applicable venue statute.
- Because Congress authorized nationwide/worldwide service in § 12, the court held that personal jurisdiction may be evaluated using a national-contacts approach (contacts with the United States), subject to Fifth Amendment reasonableness limits.
- The court held that the Hague Evidence Convention is permissive, not exclusive, and the district court acted within its discretion by allowing jurisdictional discovery to proceed under the Federal Rules without requiring Hague-first procedures.

## Legal Principles

- Section 12 of the Clayton Act contains separate concepts for venue and service; its service-of-process authorization can be invoked even when venue is established under statutes other than § 12’s venue clause.
- When a federal statute authorizes nationwide (or worldwide) service of process, personal jurisdiction in federal court may rest on the defendant’s aggregate contacts with the United States, evaluated under the Fifth Amendment.
- In assessing Fifth Amendment limits, courts focus on fairness and reasonableness in light of the defendant’s ties to the United States and the burdens of litigating in the chosen forum.
- The Hague Evidence Convention does not automatically displace discovery under the Federal Rules; courts may permit discovery under the Federal Rules while weighing comity and practical burdens through case-management orders.
- District courts have discretion to structure jurisdictional discovery involving foreign parties, including deciding whether and when Hague Convention procedures are appropriate.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit affirmed orders keeping BASF in the MDL, holding that Clayton Act § 12 permits worldwide service of process independent of § 12’s venue clause, that personal jurisdiction may be based on BASF’s contacts with the United States as a whole, and that the district court could allow jurisdictional discovery under the Federal Rules without requiring initial resort to Hague Evidence Convention procedures.


In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litigation, 358 F.3d 288 (2004)