445 P.3d 914
Or. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant, a UK citizen, lived in Oregon from ~2011 until May 2015 and obtained an Oregon driver’s license while residing there.
- Defendant moved permanently to the UK in May 2015 but kept his Oregon license and later changed the address on it; he retained the license to facilitate future U.S. rentals.
- In July 2015, defendant rented a car in Washington using his Oregon license and was involved in a collision in Vancouver, Washington, injuring plaintiff.
- Plaintiff sued in Multnomah County, Oregon (filed Sept. 2016). Defendant was a UK resident when suit was filed and was not personally served in Oregon; he moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under ORCP 21 A(2).
- Trial court granted dismissal with prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction; appellate court affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction but reversed the with-prejudice aspect and remanded for dismissal without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oregon has general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who maintains an Oregon driver’s license | License-holder availed himself of Oregon’s privileges; maintenance of an Oregon license is a substantial, continuing contact | Mere possession of an Oregon license (from past residency) is insufficient to constitute substantial and not isolated activities in Oregon when suit commenced | No general jurisdiction: keeping an Oregon license alone did not create "substantial and not isolated" activities when suit was filed (defendant domiciled in UK) |
| Whether Oregon has specific personal jurisdiction for negligence arising from an out-of-state (WA) accident | The negligent driving was in furtherance of holding an Oregon license, so the controversy is connected to Oregon | The accident and rental occurred in Washington; contacts with Oregon did not make it foreseeable defendant would be sued in Oregon | No specific jurisdiction: the claim did not arise out of or relate to defendant’s Oregon contacts; litigation was not reasonably foreseeable in Oregon |
| Proper remedy when dismissal is for lack of personal jurisdiction | Dismissal should be without prejudice so plaintiff can sue in a proper forum | N/A (defendant sought dismissal for lack of jurisdiction) | Dismissal with prejudice was erroneous; dismissal must be without prejudice because lack of jurisdiction is procedural, not on the merits |
| Standard/frame for assessing contacts when defendant formerly resided in forum | Plaintiff: prior residency and maintained license show continuing ties warranting jurisdiction | Majority: ORCP 4A inquiries focus on contacts "when the action is commenced"; past residency alone insufficient; Dissent: recent residency and short time after move retain substantial contacts | Majority applied present-tense test (contacts at time suit commenced); prior residency insufficient here; dissent would find jurisdiction given recent departure and retained ties |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (U.S. 2011) (distinguishes general and specific jurisdiction; general is for all-purpose contacts)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (minimum contacts/fair play and substantial justice standard)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (foundation for due-process minimum contacts analysis)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment and foreseeability tests)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (limits on specific jurisdiction where conduct occurs outside forum)
- State ex rel. Circus Circus Reno, Inc. v. Pope, 317 Or. 151 (Or. 1993) (ORCP 4A(4) requires more than advertising/contacts to establish general jurisdiction)
- Robinson v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., 354 Or. 572 (Or. 2013) (Oregon’s specific-jurisdiction framework; litigation must ‘‘arise out of or relate to’’ forum activities)
- Rennie v. Freeway Transport, 294 Or. 319 (Or. 1982) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is procedural, not on the merits)
- Sutherland v. Brennan, 131 Or. App. 25 (Or. Ct. App. 1994) (prior-residency/property alone insufficient for general jurisdiction)