 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wharton v. Earl Brown & Sons12/11/2001
nd reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Lewis v. Bours, 119 Wn.2d 667, 669, 835 P.2d 221 (1992); John Does v. CompCare, Inc., 52 Wn. App. 688, 693, 763 P.2d 1237 (1988).
The allegations in the complaint must be taken as correct for purposes of the appeal. Lewis, 119 Wn.2d at 670.
The exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant must be consistent with the due process requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, 97 S. Ct. 2569, 53 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1977). The amount and kind of activities required of a nonresident corporation in the forum state must be such that it is reasonable and just to subject the corporation to the jurisdiction of that state. Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 445, 72 S. Ct. 413, 96 L. Ed. 485 (1952).
A Washington court may exercise either general or specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Hein, 60 Wn. App. at 328. General jurisdiction is unrelated to a foreign corporation's specific activities in the state; specific jurisdiction is appropriate when a cause of action arises out of, or is related to, the corporation's specific activities in the state. Mr. Wharton maintains that both general and/or specific jurisdiction were appropriate here.
General Jurisdiction.
Under RCW 4.28.080(10), a court may exercise general jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation 'doing business within this state.' More specifically, RCW 4.28.080(10) authorizes general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant is transacting substantial and continuous business within the state, and this activity is of such character as to give rise to a legal obligation. Crose v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 88 Wn.2d 50, 54, 558 P.2d 764 (1977).
In other words, general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation is proper when the corporation's actions in this state are so substantial and continuous that justice allows the exercise of jurisdiction, even though the claim in question does not arise from the corporation's contacts within the state. See Im Ex Trading Co. v. Raad, 92 Wn. App. 529, 534-35, 963 P.2d 952 (1998), review denied, 137 Wn.2d 1023 (1999).
Brown's contacts with Washington consist of: (1) receiving fruit on consignment from five Washington growers; (2) using a Washington entity as Brown's exclusive broker for selling fruit--packed at the Brown facility in Oregon--to buyers elsewhere throughout the county; and (3) employing a Washington general contractor to enlarge the Brown storage facility in Oregon.
Mr. Wharton relies on Hein v. Taco Bell and Hartley v. American Contract Bridge League, 61 Wn. App. 600, 610, 812 P.2d 109 (1991) to establish that these contacts are substantial and continuous for jurisdictional purposes.
In Hein, the court concluded that general jurisdiction was proper based on Taco Bell's contacts with Washington, consisting of Taco Bell's: (1) registration as a foreign corporation in Washington for 24 years, (2) operation of restaurants in Washington, including 16 in the Seattle area alone, (3) purchases of services and supplies from Washington businesses, (4) employment of hundreds of Washington residents, and (5) benefit from Washington government services such as police and fire protection. Hein, 60 Wn. App. at 330-31. In Hartley, the court concluded that jurisdiction was proper because the defendant bridge league: (1) published a magazine for its members, including several Washington residents, (2) collected fees from Washington residents for competitions held in Washington, (3) collected dues
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|