Minimum Contacts

We've begun our discussion of jurisdiction in Civil Procedure, and I expect that the next month or so will be spent on this subject. It's an important topic, and I'm pretty sure that it'll play a major role on the exam.  So I should learn it.

What happens when someone wants to initiate legal action, in their home state, against an individual who doesn't live in their state?  Can they do that, or do they need to go where the other party lives and sue them there?  What if they want to sue a corporation which is headquartered in another state?

That last question was one of the issues in International Shoe v. Washington, a pretty significant case, in large part because it set forth the idea of minimum contacts. International Shoe was based in St. Louis, had no office in Washington, didn't make any contracts to buy and sell shoes there, and didn't keep any shoes in stock in the state.  However, over a four year period, they did employ about a dozen salespersons, who would rent out rooms, show samples of the company's goods, and take orders, which they would send to the St. Louis office for approval.   The company wasn't paying into the state's unemployment fund, and the state of Washington wanted to collect those taxes.  They sued them in Washington state court, and the shoe company argued that the state didn't have jurisdiction over them, since they had no offices, kept no merchandise on stock, and didn't actually make contracts there. 

The court found otherwise.  They held that the shoe company had had enough contact with the state that they could be sued in Washington state court.  They had had a continuous presence in the state from 1937 to 1941, and the presence of their salespersons had resulted in business for the corporation.  They had benefited from the laws of the state of Washington, and they were therefore bound by certain obligations, namely, the obligation to pay into the state's unemployment fund.  

The question of what constitutes minimum contacts comes up again and again in case law, both when it comes to general and specific jurisdiction. We'll get into that over the next little while.  For now, the closest parallel that I have to this comes from Alex Garland's novel, The Beach. [Yes, the one that was made into a DiCaprio vehicle.  Yes, a lot was lost in translation. Yes, there is a place that really is that gorgeous.  Been there, as in THERE.]

I picked up a copy of the book while backpacking in Asia, and flew through it in a matter of days.  It's a good one, and he gets into the head of the traveler, capturing the thrill of the search for an unknown utopia, as well as the condescension and elitism that can easily accompany it.  In other words, it spoke true to me. 

I haven't thought about it much since, but it immediately came to mind during class, specifically a scene where one of the new arrivals is getting to know a longtime member of the beach community, talking about one thing that these two have in common: travel.

I waited while Keaty finished rolling the joint.

'...So you've done a lot of travelling.

''Sure. Thailand, Indonesia, Mexico, Guatemala, Columbia, Turkey, India and Nepal. Oh, also Pakistan. Sort of. I was in Karachi for three days on a stopover. You count that?''

"Uh-uh."

'Me neither. How about you?'

I shrugged.

'I've never done any of the Americas stuff, or Africa. Just around Asia really. Europe too, I suppose. How about Europe? Does Europe count?'

'Not if you won't count Karachi.'

He lit up. 'Got a favourite?'

Country counting, passport comparing, and swapping stories of favorites.  All stuff that I did, saw others doing, and caught myself slipping into a bit too quickly.  This text got that, and he got it right.

There's a certain authenticity about not counting somewhere if you were just passing through.  I'll count Malaysia, where my trip began and ended, even if the only city I spent time in was Kuala Lumpur (all the more reason to go back).  I bussed through both sides of the country, and spent multiple days and nights in Kuala Lumpur, where I ate, drank, shopped, saw some sights, and wound up having some initially-accidental extended conversations with locals.  I got enough of a feel for the city, and learned enough about the country, to say that I was there. But I won't count China.  I've got a Chinese stamp in my passport, by virtue of going through the airport, but there's no way that I'll claim that I've been to China. 

My test for the US is a bit looser, though.  Right now, my standards are pretty liberal.  They're  based on whether I've sat down and eaten a meal in the state.  Eating and/or spending a night make for more than just passing through, in my book, especially when the prospect of going back isn't going to require a crazy expensive plane flight.  My count currently sits at 33. If I can get to 50 before turning 50, I'll count that as meeting a life goal.

I'll know that the idea of minimum contacts is getting into my head if my test for counting a visit to a country or US State changes.  If I start asking "Can I be sued there?", that number could change (most likely decreasing) without any further activity on my part.