Facts
- Kathy Keeton, a New York resident associated with publishing Penthouse, alleged that Hustler magazine printed defamatory material about her in five issues published between 1975 and 1976.
- The alleged libel included a cartoon implying she contracted a sexually transmitted disease and a nude pictorial falsely identified as depicting her.
- Keeton had no meaningful personal or business connections to New Hampshire.
- Hustler Magazine, Inc., an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in California, regularly distributed its magazine nationwide, including selling about 10,000–15,000 copies per month in New Hampshire.
- Keeton filed a diversity libel action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, partly because New Hampshire had a six-year limitations period for libel and, under the single publication rule, one suit could seek damages for nationwide injury.
Issues
- Whether due process permits New Hampshire to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident magazine publisher in a libel action based on the publisher’s regular circulation of the magazine in New Hampshire, even though the plaintiff is not a New Hampshire resident.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the First Circuit and held New Hampshire could constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over Hustler.
- Hustler’s continuous, deliberate distribution of thousands of magazines in New Hampshire constituted sufficient minimum contacts.
- The claim arose out of Hustler’s forum contacts because the alleged libel appeared in magazines circulated in New Hampshire.
- Keeton’s lack of forum residence and New Hampshire’s longer limitations period did not defeat jurisdiction.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Legal Principles
- Specific personal jurisdiction depends on minimum contacts assessed through the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.
- A plaintiff’s residence in the forum state is not a constitutional requirement for personal jurisdiction when the defendant has adequate forum contacts.
- A publisher that purposefully and regularly distributes publications in a state should reasonably anticipate being sued there for claims arising from those publications.
- Considerations about differences in statutes of limitations across states, and a plaintiff’s forum selection strategy, do not determine whether minimum contacts exist for due process purposes.
- When the plaintiff seeks a single recovery for multistate injury under the single publication rule, the defendant’s contacts may be evaluated in light of that multistate claim.
Conclusion
The Court held that a state may assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident publisher in a libel suit when the publisher regularly circulates the allegedly defamatory publication in the forum, regardless of the plaintiff’s nonresidency and regardless of limitations-period advantages that may have influenced the forum choice.