Companhia Brasileira Carbureto De Calcio—CBCC v. Applied Industrial Materials Corp.
35 A.3d 1127
D.C.2012Background
- Certified question of law on whether petitioning a federal agency in DC can basis personal jurisdiction when fraudulently induced unwarranted government action.
- Long-arm statute DC Code § 13-423 requires both statutory authorization and due process.
- Due process requires minimum contacts and deliberate purposeful contacts with the forum.
- Fraud exception to government contacts doctrine acknowledged as potentially allowing jurisdiction for fraudulently induced petitions.
- Courts must require clear pleading of fraud and actual agency reliance on the fraudulent information; strict standards apply under Rule 9(b) and its analogs.
- Facts: ITC imposition of duties on Brazilian ferrosilicon producers; suit filed 2001 in DC; district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; circuit certified question to DC Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioning a federal agency in DC can establish personal jurisdiction when fraudulently induced unwarranted action. | Plaintiff contends fraudulent petitioning should subject petitioner to DC jurisdiction. | Defendant argues no jurisdiction under government contacts absent acts within long-arm statute. | Yes; a fraud exception to government contacts is available. |
| Whether a fraud exception exists to the government contacts doctrine. | Fraudulent petitions should permit jurisdiction. | Fraud exception may be limited or non-existent. | There is a fraud exception to government contacts. |
| What pleading standard governs invocation of the fraud exception. | Plaintiff must plead fraud with particularity and agency reliance. | General allegations of fraud are insufficient. | Fraud must be pled with particularity and show agency reliance. |
| What standards govern the court's handling of jurisdictional disputes without an evidentiary hearing. | Prima facie showing suffices. | Heightened, preponderance standard may apply if evidence is presented. | Prima facie showing ordinarily required; if evidence is introduced, apply higher standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Environmental Research Int’l, Inc. v. Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc., 355 A.2d 808 (D.C.1976) (long-arm scope and government contacts doctrine)
- Shoppers Food Warehouse v. Moreno, 746 A.2d 320 (D.C.2000) (en banc on government contacts; jurisdictional limits)
- Rose v. Silver, 394 A.2d 1368 (D.C.1978) (discussion of government contacts with First Amendment implications)
- Lex Tex Ltd. v. Skillman, 579 A.2d 244 (D.C.1990) (limits on government contacts doctrine)
- Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 232 U.S.App. D.C. 293, 722 F.2d 779 (1983) (fraud-based exception requiring credible, specific allegations)
- California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972) (fraud not protected from First Amendment in petitioning context)
- McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985) (right to petition does not immunize falsehoods; fraud exception)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts due process framework)