Aviation Publishing Corp. v. Morgan
2018 Ohio 3224
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Higgins (California resident) owned Aviation Publishing Corp. (Nevada) which published Flying Adventures; Morgan (Ohio resident) agreed in a written contract to manage the magazine and had a forum-selection clause naming "Pasadena, California Small Claims Court" or arbitration in Pasadena.
- Dispute arose after Morgan ceased involvement; Higgins/APC sued Morgan in Los Angeles Superior Court for breach of contract and obtained a default judgment ($50,000 plus interest/costs) after Morgan did not appear.
- Higgins/APC sought to domesticate the California judgment in Warren County, Ohio; Morgan moved to vacate, arguing lack of authentication, lack of California personal/subject-matter jurisdiction, improper service, and fraud in inducement.
- The trial court limited evidentiary issues to personal jurisdiction and service; the magistrate took judicial notice that no small-claims courthouse sat in Pasadena and found the forum-selection clause defective because it named a non-existent court and that Morgan lacked sufficient California contacts.
- Higgins/APC did not object to the magistrate’s decision; the trial court adopted it; on appeal Higgins/APC argued plain error on (1) effect of the forum-selection clause and (2) sufficiency of Morgan’s contacts under the Due Process Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Higgins/APC) | Defendant's Argument (Morgan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the forum-selection clause submitted Morgan to California court jurisdiction | Clause mandates California jurisdiction; court should honor forum-selection clause | Clause points to a non-existent Pasadena small-claims court and does not confer jurisdiction | Court rejected plain-error claim; magistrate reasonably found clause defective and not dispositive of jurisdiction |
| Whether the California court had minimum contacts / due process to exercise jurisdiction | Morgan had communications and contractual ties; court should find purposeful availment and jurisdiction | Morgan is Ohio-based, did no business in California, sales agents outside CA, no pecuniary benefit from CA | Court found no obvious plain error: magistrate correctly applied minimum-contacts test and concluded contacts insufficient |
| Whether default California judgment may be collaterally attacked in Ohio for lack of jurisdiction | Judgment should be given effect under full faith and credit; forum clause requires CA adjudication | Judgment is void if CA lacked personal jurisdiction under CA law or due process | Court applied collateral-attack principles and upheld magistrate’s conclusion that CA judgment could be rejected for lack of personal jurisdiction |
| Whether appellate plain-error review permits reversal absent objections to magistrate | Magistrate misapplied law re forum clause and contacts | Failure to object limits review to plain-error standard; appellants must show obvious legal error affecting fairness | Court declined to find plain error given reasoned magistrate analysis and appellants’ failure to object |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (civil plain-error standard and narrow application)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (minimum contacts/purposeful availment test for due process)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (three-part specific jurisdiction test)
- Litsinger Sign Co. v. American Sign Co., 11 Ohio St.2d 1 (Ohio 1967) (collateral attack on sister-state judgments when jurisdiction lacking)