## Facts

- Hendrik Koster, a Dutch citizen operating from Amsterdam, discussed a potential distribution arrangement for Swiss-made valve cap gauges with Automark Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation doing business from Illinois.
- In mid-1970, Automark initiated contact by letter requesting product information and prices, followed by several months of correspondence between Illinois and Amsterdam.
- Automark stated it would not negotiate and conclude a contract solely through mail and proposed an in-person meeting in Europe.
- The parties ultimately met in Milan, Italy, where the document alleged to be Automark’s contract to purchase up to 600,000 units was executed.
- Koster claimed Automark breached the alleged 1971 purchase obligation and sued Automark in an Amsterdam court for breach of contract.
- Automark did not appear in the Dutch action, and the Amsterdam court entered a default judgment for Koster for damages in Dutch florins.
- Koster later filed a diversity action in federal court in Illinois seeking recognition and enforcement of the Dutch default judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Dutch court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Automark satisfied U.S. due process minimum-contacts standards such that a U.S. court could recognize and enforce the Dutch default judgment.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment enforcing the Dutch default judgment.
- The court held Automark lacked sufficient contacts with the Netherlands to support personal jurisdiction under U.S. due process principles.
- Because the Dutch court lacked personal jurisdiction under those standards, the default judgment could not be enforced in U.S. courts.

## Legal Principles

- A U.S. court may refuse to recognize and enforce a foreign-country judgment if the foreign court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over the defendant would not satisfy U.S. due process.
- Due process requires that a defendant “purposefully avail” itself of conducting activities in the forum, creating minimum contacts such that exercising jurisdiction is fair and foreseeable.
- Preliminary correspondence with a forum resident, without more forum-directed activity, does not necessarily establish minimum contacts with the forum.
- Contract execution and performance locations matter in assessing purposeful availment; a forum’s connection may be too attenuated when the agreement is formed elsewhere and the defendant has no business presence in the forum.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit declined to give effect to a Dutch default judgment because Automark’s limited dealings connected to the Netherlands—primarily letters to a Dutch-based counterparty—did not amount to purposeful availment or make litigation in the Netherlands reasonably foreseeable under U.S. minimum-contacts due process standards.


Koster v. Automark Indus., Inc., 640 F.2d 77 (7th Cir. 1981)