## Facts

- Omni Capital International, Ltd. and Omni Capital Corporation marketed an investment program involving commodity-futures trades executed on the London Metals Exchange.
- Investors sued Omni in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging fraudulent inducement and violations of federal securities laws.
- Omni filed third-party claims against Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., a British firm used to execute the trades, and James Gourlay, Wolff’s U.K.-based representative, alleging their trading conduct caused any liability.
- After recognition of a private right of action under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), the investors amended their pleadings to assert CEA violations; Congress later enacted an express private right of action in CEA § 22.
- The CEA’s private-action provision did not include a service-of-process authorization comparable to other CEA provisions that expressly authorize broader service.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal district court may exercise personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants in a CEA federal-question case when the CEA does not authorize service of process for private actions and the forum state’s long-arm statute does not reach the defendants.
2. Whether a federal court may create a federal common-law rule authorizing service of process (and thus personal jurisdiction) to fill a statutory gap in federal-question litigation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court held the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over Rudolf Wolff & Co. and Gourlay.
- Personal jurisdiction required statutory authorization making the defendants amenable to service of summons; neither the CEA nor Louisiana’s long-arm statute provided that authorization.
- The Court declined to create a federal common-law service or personal-jurisdiction rule in the absence of congressional authorization.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction requires more than notice and constitutionally sufficient forum contacts; it also requires a valid statutory basis authorizing service of process.
- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) (as applied in the case), a federal court looks first to an applicable federal statute for service authorization; if absent, it relies on the forum state’s long-arm statute.
- When Congress creates or codifies a federal cause of action without authorizing service of process, courts may not infer nationwide service from statutory purpose or regulatory interests.
- Federal courts should not fashion federal common-law rules expanding service of process or personal jurisdiction where Congress has not provided such authority.

## Conclusion

The Court held that, in a federal-question action under the CEA, personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants was unavailable because no statute authorized service of process on them: the CEA’s private-action provision was silent, and Louisiana’s long-arm statute did not apply; the judiciary could not supply the missing authorization through federal common law.


Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97 (1987)