SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
A-976-95T3
JOHN J. HALAK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JACK SCOVILL, SUSAN SCOVILL, HAVEN
CHARTERS and ARPEGE CHARTERS, INC.,
Defendants-Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
Submitted September 10, 1996 - Decided January 15, 1997
Before Judges Pressler, Stern and Humphreys.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Somerset County.
Halak & Associates, attorneys for appellant (Mr. Halak,
on the brief).
Colquhoun & Colquhoun, attorneys for respondents (Kevin
F. Colquhoun, on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HUMPHREYS, J.A.D.
Plaintiff, an attorney and New Jersey resident, chartered a boat in Maryland for a three day excursion on the Chesapeake Bay. The boat malfunctioned. The parties could not agree on the amount of a refund. Plaintiff stopped payment on checks he had given to the defendants for the charter fee. The defendants then filed a criminal complaint in Maryland against the plaintiff based on the stopped payment. A warrant was issued for
plaintiff's arrest. Defendants also allegedly advised other boat
charterers in Maryland that plaintiff had issued a bad check and
that a warrant for his arrest was outstanding.
Plaintiff engaged counsel in Maryland to defend against the
criminal complaint. The Maryland Attorney General's office
determined that it would not prosecute the complaint and it was
dismissed.
Plaintiff brought suit in New Jersey alleging breach of
contract, malicious prosecution, abuse of process and defamation.
The complaint was dismissed because: (1) service of process was
insufficient; and (2) the court lacked "general personal
jurisdiction over the defendants." Plaintiff appeals the
dismissal. We hold that sufficient minimum contacts with New
Jersey have been shown and therefore jurisdiction may be
exercised over the defendants.
When a lawsuit is filed, the court may assert personal jurisdiction over a party not present in the forum state if that party has "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S. Ct. 154, 158, 90 L. Ed. 95, 102 (1945); Lebel v. Everglades Marina, Inc., 115 N.J. 317, 322 (1989).
The Court must evaluate "`the burden on the defendant,' `the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute,' `the
plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective
relief,' `the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining
the most efficient resolution of controversies,' and the `shared
interest of the several States in furthering fundamental
substantive social policies.'" Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
471 U.S. 462, 477,
105 S. Ct. 2174, 2184,
85 L. Ed.2d 528, 543
(1985) (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson,
444 U.S. 286, 292,
100 S. Ct. 559, 564,
62 L. Ed.2d 490, 498 (1980)).
New Jersey will exercise jurisdiction on non-resident
defendants "to the uttermost limits permitted by the United
States Constitution." Avdel Corp. v. Mecure,
58 N.J. 264, 268
(1971). Once "minimum contacts" have been found, the out-of-state defendant "must present a compelling case that the presence
of some other considerations would render jurisdiction
unreasonable." Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at 477, 105 S. Ct.
at 2185, 85 L. Ed.
2d at 543; see also Lebel, supra, 115 N.J. at
328.
The "measure of minimum contacts" varies depending on the
nature of the case. Lebel, supra, 115 N.J. at 322. If the cause
of action relates directly to the defendant's contacts with the
forum state, the issue is one of "specific jurisdiction."
Ibid.; Waste Management, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co.,
138 N.J. 106,
119 (1994), cert. denied, U.S. ,
115 S. Ct. 1175,
130 L.
Ed.2d 1128 (1995); Citibank, N.A. v. Estate of Simpson,
290 N.J.
Super. 519, 526 (App. Div. 1996); Pfundstein v. Omnicom Group,
Inc.,
285 N.J. Super. 245, 251 (App. Div. 1995); Creative
Business v. Magnum,
267 N.J. Super. 560, 568-69 (App. Div. 1993);
Cruz v. Robinson Engineering Corp.,
253 N.J. Super. 66, 72-73
(App. Div.), certif. denied,
130 N.J. 9 (1992). If the suit is
not related directly to the defendant's contacts, but based
instead "on the defendant's continuous and systematic activities
in the forum," then the State's exercise of jurisdiction is
general. Waste Management, supra, 138 N.J. at 119.
In a specific jurisdiction case, the minimum contacts
inquiry must focus on the relationship among the defendant, the
forum and the litigation. A "lesser standard is required to
sustain the exercise of specific jurisdiction." Citibank, supra,
290 N.J. Super. at 527. In such a case, "the `minimum contacts'
requirement is satisfied so long as the contacts resulted from
the defendant's purposeful conduct and not the unilateral
activities of the plaintiff." Lebel, supra, 115 N.J. at 323.
The purposeful contact requirement "ensures that a defendant will
not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of `random,'
`fortuitous,' or `attenuated,' contacts." Ibid. "The question
is whether `the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum
State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled
into court there.'" Id. at 324 (citing World-Wide Volkswagen,
444 U.S. at 297, 100 S. Ct. at 567, 62 L. Ed.
2d at 501).
In Lebel, supra, the Court said that the mere fact that
neither defendant nor the product sold by defendant was ever
physically present in New Jersey does not preclude a finding that
minimum contacts existed so long as the defendant's efforts were
purposely directed toward a resident of this State and the
defendant was aware that the sale would have direct consequences
in New Jersey. 115 N.J. at 327. Under these circumstances, the
court said, the defendant should have been aware of the
possibility of litigation arising in New Jersey. Ibid.
Mere foreseeability of an event in another state is not a
"sufficient benchmark" for the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
Lebel, supra, 115 N.J. at 324. However, if the cause of action
is "related to the defendant's contacts with the forum state, an
isolated act may be sufficient to subject the defendant
to the jurisdiction of the forum." Charles Gendler Co. v.
Telecom Equipment Corp.,
102 N.J. 460, 471 (1986); see also In re
Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co.,
258 N.J. Super. 356, 369-71
(App. Div. 1992) (in specific jurisdiction matters, the fact that
a non-resident has entered into a contract with a party in the
forum state is a factor to be considered).
Defendants contend that their contacts with New Jersey were too slight to permit New Jersey to assert jurisdiction over them. Defendants stress that the yacht was chartered in Maryland from a Maryland corporation whose only place of business is Maryland,
and that the alleged mechanical difficulties occurred in Maryland.
Defendants, however, had some contact with New Jersey. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants sent the contract to plaintiff at his New Jersey address and plaintiff signed it in
New Jersey. Plaintiff says he negotiated the contract over the
telephone while he was in New Jersey and his check was drawn on a
New Jersey bank. Further, the plaintiff had apparently chartered
a boat from the defendant the previous year. Consequently, a
prior business relationship existed between the parties.
These contacts standing alone might not be sufficient
"minimum contacts" to warrant a New Jersey court's exercise of
jurisdiction over the defendants. However, when these contacts
are considered with the defendants' subsequent acts of filing a
criminal complaint, obtaining an arrest warrant, and advising
other boat charterers in Maryland that the defendant was subject
to arrest, the totality of the circumstances meet the standard of
"minimum contacts."
Assuming the validity of plaintiff's claims, the defendants
committed intentional torts against a New Jersey resident. Thus,
plaintiff's cause of action resulted from the defendants'
purposeful conduct against him, a New Jersey resident, and not
his unilateral activities. Further, the defendant's purposeful
conduct arose out of a business relationship with a New Jersey
resident. Consequently, defendants are not being "haled" into a
New Jersey court solely as a result of "random," "fortuitous," or
"attenuated" contacts. See Lebel, supra, 115 N.J. at 323. A
person who commits a tort arising out of a business dispute with
a New Jersey resident and has some contacts with New Jersey in
connection with that business transaction should reasonably
anticipate being sued in New Jersey. See World-Wide Volkswagen,
supra, 440 U.S. at 297-98, 100 S. Ct. at 567-68, 62 L. Ed.
2d at
501-02.
Furthermore, jurisdiction in tort actions is found more
readily. As stated by Judge Keefe in Beckwith v. Bethlehem Steel
Corp.,
182 N.J. Super. 376 (Law Div. 1981), "[j]urisdiction in
tort actions may be premised upon a single contact with the forum
if the contact results in injury to one of its residents. New
Jersey has a strong interest in providing access to its courts
for citizens who have sustained injury due to the actions of an
out of state defendant." Id. at 384; see also Blessing v.
Prosser,
141 N.J. Super. 548, 549-50 (App. Div. 1976) (in tort
action by New Jersey resident for a fall in an out-of-state
motel, jurisdiction in New Jersey was permitted based upon the
motel's advertisements in travel books circulated in New Jersey).
Jurisdiction in the forum state may also be based on the
effects in the forum state of a non-resident's actions. In
Calder v. Jones,
465 U.S. 783,
104 S. Ct. 1482,
79 L. Ed.2d 804
(1984), the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the
jurisdiction of the California court over a non-resident
newspaper reporter and editor in an action for defamation. The
Court held that California's exercise of jurisdiction was proper
based on the "effects" in California of the defendant's Florida
conduct. Ibid. The intentional conduct of the defendant in
Florida was "calculated to cause injury to [plaintiff] in
California." Id. at 791, 104 S. Ct. at 1488, 79 L. Ed.
2d at
813; see also Johnson v. Bradbury,
233 N.J. Super. 129, 134 (App.
Div. 1989) (plaintiff's actions in uprooting herself from New
Jersey in consideration of her non-resident father's promise to
afford her a college education created "effects" within New
Jersey and therefore conferred jurisdiction upon New Jersey);
Wolpert v. North Shore University Hospital, 231 N.J. Super. 378,
381 (App. Div. 1989) (jurisdiction in New Jersey may be exercised
against non-resident physicians who negligently prepared reports
intending that the reports would be the basis for action in New
Jersey); Bovino v. Brumbaugh,
221 N.J. Super. 432, 437-38 (App.
Div. 1987) (jurisdiction not exercised over a non-resident
physician who renders services in another state to a New Jersey
patient who voluntarily travels to that other state to benefit
from the physician's services); see generally Restatement
(Second) of Conflict of Laws § 37 & cmt. (a)(2) (1971)
(jurisdiction may be predicated upon an act, although not done
with the intention of causing effects in the State, if the act
could reasonably have been expected to do so).
Here, defendants' intentional conduct in obtaining an arrest
warrant and notifying other charterers of plaintiff's allegedly
criminal conduct would clearly have a significant effect on
plaintiff, an attorney, in the state in which he resides and
practices his profession. See R. 1:20-13(a)(1) (requiring a New
Jersey attorney charged with a crime to inform the Office of
Attorney Ethics). Fair play and substantial justice are enhanced
by permitting plaintiff to obtain relief in New Jersey from the
defendants' allegedly tortious activities directed toward him as
a result of a dispute stemming from their business relationship.
Plaintiff does not challenge on this appeal the judge's holding that the service of process was insufficient. Thus, if plaintiff does not effect proper service within a reasonable time, defendants may move for dismissal on that ground. See Crispin v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 96 N.J. 336, 345 (1984) (dismissal with prejudice for failure to issue a summons in accordance with the court rules should normally be ordered only if "no lesser sanction will erase the prejudice suffered by the non-delinquent party"); X-L Liquors, Inc. v. Taylor, 17 N.J. 444, 454-55 (1955) (after ineffective first attempt at service, the delay in proceeding with the second service did not prejudice the non-delinquent party and, consequently, action was not dismissed).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.