I. BACKGROUND
On September 3, 1978, the auto racing career of Michael James Rocke came to an all too familiar end. While Rocke was competing in a Formula Atlantic road race on the streets of the City of Three Rivers, Quebec, Canada, his car skidded on the slippery racing surface and went out of control. The car then struck a guard rail which, according to Rocke, failed to perform its intended function of safely arresting the car’s motion. Instead, the guard rail was lifted into the air by the force of the impact, and then fell downward with a guillotine-like stroke which sliced off the front of Rocke’s car. Rocke suffered extensive, painful, and disabling injuries in the accident, including a severed right foot.
The Formula Atlantic series in which Rocke was competing at the time of the accident is an important training ground for aspiring young North American road racing drivers who seek to break the traditional European dominance of the sport. Several Formula Atlantic races are staged each year throughout Canada and the Continental United States. The Canadian races are sanctioned by the Canadian Automobile Sport Club (CASC), while the Sports Car Club of America (SCCA) sanctions the U.S. races. Club Autosport Mauricien (CAM) is a Quebec affiliate of CASC which was also involved in staging the 1978 Three Rivers event.
On March 22, 1979, Rocke and his wife Barbara filed a diversity action in the Northern District of California against CASC, CAM, and SCCA. The Rockes alleged three causes of action for Michael’s personal injuries, Barbara’s loss of consortium, and for punitive damages. A protective action was also filed in Quebec and subsequently stayed pending the outcome of the action in the United States.
The named defendants appeared specially and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction. In addition, the SCCA moved to be dismissed as a defendant on the ground that it was not involved in planning, sanctioning, or supervising the Three Rivers event.
CASC offered an affidavit by its Executive Director, Robert J. Hanna, which indicated that CASC had never transacted or solicited any business in California and that it had never maintained an office or held any tangible property in California. The affidavit further asserted that the only contact which CASC had ever had with California was the sending of observers to Formula Atlantic events held in Long Beach, California, in 1978 and 1979. CASC officials were necessarily confined to observer roles at the Long Beach races because CASC is prohibited under the International Rules of Motor Sport from sanctioning any events held outside of the territorial confines of Canada. CAM offered a similar affidavit by its President, Claude Pilotte, who asserted that CAM had not maintained any contact whatever with California.
The Rockes countered with fairly substantial documentary evidence of CASC and CAM contact with a number of individual drivers who resided in California. They argued that CASC and, to a lesser extent CAM, had engaged in a consistent practice of advertising and driver solicitation in California which provided sufficient “minimum contacts” with California to sustain in personam jurisdiction there.
The Rockes produced CASC mailing lists for 1976, 1977, and 1978. The lists showed that in each of those years, CASC regularly corresponded with 43, 36, and 26 California drivers, respectively. Various examples of the substance of CASC correspondence were offered, including, inter alia, publication of technical regulations, solicitations to participate in specific events, and press release-style updates on the progress of competition. Evidence that CASC had advertised the Three Rivers event in two national motor sports publications was also produced. Michael’s entry form for the Three Rivers race disclosed that he had duly entered and paid the entry fee.
A supplemental affidavit signed by the Rockes’ attorney set out in greater detail the difficulties which were anticipated in the event of litigation in Quebec. Based upon consultation with local counsel in Quebec, the attorney noted six factors which he argued tipped the balance of hardships in the Rocke’s favor, including:
1. A nonresident bond in the amount of $7,200.00;
2. The absence of a res ipsa loquitur theory in Canada;
3. The non-availability of punitive damages;
4. The admissibility of evidence relative to collateral sources of payments;
5. The rating of future disability damages in a manner which would tend to restrict Michael’s recovery; and
6. The use of the French language.
On January 18, 1980, the district court dismissed the action as to all three defendants. The court found that CASC and CAM had not initiated sufficient contact with California to justify a finding of in personam jurisdiction, either generally or over the Rockes’ specific claim. The court also dismissed the SCCA because it had not been involved in sanctioning the Three Rivers race. The Rockes appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
The Rockes argue on appeal that the district court erred in finding that the contacts of CASC and CAM with California were insufficient to support in personam jurisdiction under the theories of either “general” or “special” jurisdiction. They also argue that the SCCA should not have been dismissed.
The lengthy and sometimes frustrating history of American theories of personal jurisdiction has been told elsewhere and will not be recounted here. We pause only to sketch briefly the ground rules as they currently stand.
A forum state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant for any claim related or unrelated to the defendant’s contacts with the forum where the contacts are “continuous and systematic.”
See, e. g., Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Company,
“(1) The nonresident defendant must do some act or consummate some transaction with the forum or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. (2) The claim must be one which arises out of or results from the defendant’s forum-related activities. (3) Exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.”
Data Disc, supra,
California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.-10, California’s long arm jurisdiction statute, allows for the exercise of jurisdiction “on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” Consequently, we need inquire here only whether assertion of jurisdiction by California would comport with due process.
We can hold without hesitation that the contacts of CASC and CAM with California would not support an assertion of
We find it unnecessary to determine here whether an assertion of personal jurisdiction over CASC and CAM by California would satisfy the first two prongs of
Data Disc.
In
Insurance Company of North America v. Marina Salina Cruz,
A. “Purposeful interjection”
The contacts of CASC and CAM with California were not extensive. Solicitation and correspondence were restricted to that necessary to obtain driver entries and to keep participants informed of new developments in the series. This factor would tend to weigh against jurisdiction in California.
Burden of litigating in California B.
A primary concern under a due process analysis is with the burden placed upon the defendant.
Marina Salina Cruz, supra,
C. Conflict with Sovereignty of Defendant’s State
Where the defendant is a resident of a foreign nation rather than a resident of another state within our federal system, the sovereignty barrier is “higher”.
D. Interest of Forum State
California clearly has an interest in litigating the Rockes’ claims. If Michael’s injuries prove to be permanently disabling, the economic impact will certainly be felt in California. On the other hand, California’s interest is diluted somewhat because it has no reasonable interest otherwise in regulating the conduct of CASC and CAM. While California’s interest thus has some impact in favor of approving jurisdiction there, it is not so strong as to counteract the factors which point to a contrary result.
E. Most Efficient Resolution
Quebec would appear to be the most efficient forum to resolve this dispute. As the
F. Convenient and Effective Relief for Plaintiff
The Rockes have argued forcefully that Quebec would be both a less convenient and less effective forum for relief than would California. We acknowledge that some difficulties are presented in taking this action to Canada. Yet we do not perceive the likelihood of recovery as being so significantly diminished in the Canadian forum as to justify California taking jurisdiction of this dispute.
G. Availability of an Alternative Forum
The Rockes have not disputed the availability of an alternative forum in Canada. Indeed, an action has been filed there so as to preserve their rights as against the statute of limitations. CASC and CAM have represented that they would not object to defending this action in Canada.
On balance, these factors compel us to hold that it would not be reasonable to subject CASC and CAM to personal jurisdiction in California for these claims. Due process requires that we weigh more heavily the expectations of and burdens upon the defendants than we weigh the hardships upon the plaintiff. The cursory nature of the initial contacts with California, the burdens of litigating this dispute in California, the residency of the defendants in a foreign nation, and the availability of an alternative forum wherein an efficient resolution of the controversy may be obtained all counsel us to affirm the district court’s holding that it lacked jurisdiction.
We summarily affirm the dismissal of the SCCA as a defendant. The record discloses unequivocally that it was not involved in sanctioning the Three Rivers race.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.