Ucker v. Taylor3/5/1991
s state" as it appears in R.C. 2307.382 and Civ.R. 4.3(A)(1), which are applicable to this case. That court defined this phrase to include the prosecution of negotiations, to carry on business, and to have dealings with. Id. at 75, 559 N.E.2d at 479-480. R.C. 2307.382(A)(1) authorizes a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, while Civ.R. 4.3(A)(1) provides for the service of process to place into effect that jurisdiction. The "reasonableness" of jurisdiction may be established upon a lesser showing of "minimum contacts" per se. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985), 471 U.S. 462, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528.
As this court has previously held in Ohio State Tie Timber, Inc., supra, the language "transacting any business" requires an "* * * actual transaction of business, not just an impact on Ohio commerce. * * *" Indus. Comm. v. First National Bank of St. Paul (May 16, 1989), Franklin App. No. 88AP-1013, unreported, 1989 WL 52987. Therein lies a distinguishing factor in Ohio State Tie & Timber, Inc. from our case sub judice, because in Ohio State Tie & Timber, Inc., we determined that the mere ordering of goods from this state by telephone, without more, did not constitute the "transaction of business" as such. The trial court's reliance on that decision was misplaced, given the facts of this case.
Sub judice, the defendants personally came into this state and clearly conducted professional business herein, to wit: the practice of law, by conducting the deposition of the plaintiff in this forum. Personal jurisdiction does not even require physical presence in the forum state. Burger King Corp., supra; and Gold Circle Stores v. Body Maven, Inc. (S.D.Ohio 1988), 711 F.Supp. 897, applied. It should be noted that the defendants were properly served with process by certified mail as of July 6, 1990.
We are persuaded that this case is more properly governed by our reasoning as set forth in First National Bank of St. Paul, supra, with reference to World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980), 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490, and Burger King Corp., supra. See, also, Anilas, Inc. v. Kern (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 163, 31 OBR 366, 509 N.E.2d 1267; and Nationwide Federal Credit Union v. Monroe (Oct. 11, 1990), Franklin App. No. 90AP-344, unreported, 1990 WL 152928.
Engaging in the practice of law in this state falls within the plain and common meaning of the phrase "transacting any business" as employed in R.C. 2307.382(A)(1) and Civ.R. 4.3(A)(1).
Given the facts of this case and for the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs assignments of error are sustained, the judgment of the trial court is re-
versed, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
WHITESIDE and JOHN. YOUNG, JJ., concur.
WILLIAM J. MARTIN, J., of the Carroll County Common Pleas Court, sitting by assignment.
|