Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

DeJames v. Magnificence Carriers, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1981 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePersonal JurisdictionService of ProcessAdmiraltypersonal jurisdictionadmiraltystate long-arm ruleminimum contacts

Facts

DeJames, a New Jersey longshoreman, was injured in Camden, New Jersey while working on a vessel that Hitachi, a Japanese corporation, had converted in Japan from a bulk carrier to an automobile carrier. He alleged that Hitachi's conversion work was defective. Hitachi submitted an affidavit stating that it completed all work in Japan, had no further contact with the vessel after it left Osaka, and had no office, agent, or business transactions in New Jersey. Process was served on Hitachi in Japan through the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs in apparent compliance with an international treaty.

Issue

Whether the federal court in New Jersey could exercise personal jurisdiction over Hitachi based on the vessel's presence in New Jersey when the injury occurred, and whether service through the international service treaty constituted a wholly federal means of service permitting the court to aggregate Hitachi's contacts with the United States as a whole.

Rule

When service in a federal admiralty case must be made pursuant to a state long-arm rule, the defendant's amenability to suit is limited by that rule and judged by fourteenth amendment due process standards. A defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum such that suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, and the defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the forum rather than merely foreseen that its product or work might reach the forum. The Hague service treaty provides a mechanism or manner of service abroad, not independent authorization for service of process or a wholly federal basis for personal jurisdiction.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nora Vega, a dockworker in Newark, New Jersey, was injured while unloading machinery from a cargo ship. She sued Baltic Forge Works, a Polish ship-refit company, in federal court on an admiralty claim, alleging that defective refitting work performed entirely in Gdansk caused the injury. Baltic Forge has no office, agent, or business in New Jersey, and its only identified connection to New Jersey is that the ship later docked there.

If Nora relied on New Jersey's long-arm rule to serve Baltic Forge abroad, is personal jurisdiction over Baltic Forge proper in New Jersey?

Explanation. When a federal admiralty plaintiff must rely on a state long-arm rule for service, the court's jurisdiction is limited by that rule and measured by Fourteenth Amendment minimum-contacts standards. The majority held that mere foreseeability that a vessel may travel to a forum is not enough; the defendant must purposefully avail itself of the forum. Work performed entirely abroad, followed only by the ship's later arrival in New Jersey through the owner's independent choice, is insufficient.