Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.

NAME:
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 1984

FACTS:
· Petitioner (“P”) Keeton, a resident of New York, has a connection to New Hampshire (“N.H.”) only through the circulation of copies of a magazine she assisted in producing. P claims to have been libeled in 5 separate issues of respondent’s (“R”) magazine. N.H. is the only state in which the statute of limitations for libel actions had not expired.
· R, Hustler Magazine, Inc., an Ohio corporation w/ its principal place of business in California, has a connection to N.H. only through the sale of 10 to 15,000 copies of its magazine each month.

PROCEDURE:
P brought suit against R in Ohio - dismissed b/c statute of limitations expired. P then filed w/ the U.S. District Court for the District of N.H. District court dismissed b/c believed that the Due Process Clause forbade the application of N.H.’s long-arm statute in order to acquire personal jurisdiction over R. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Certiorari granted.

ISSUE:
Does a N.H. court have personal jurisdiction over non-resident P & non-resident R where R’s only connection to N.H. is the sale of its magazine?

HOLDING:
YES. R’s regular circulation of magazines in the forum state, coupled w/ N.H.’s interest in redressing injuries that occur w/in the state & in cooperating w/ other states in the application of the “single publication rule,” demonstrates jurisdiction over the action brought against R in N.H.

REASONING:
· N.H.’s long-arm statute: “If a foreign corp. … commits a tort in whole or in part in N.H., such act shall be deemed to be doing business in N.H. … may serve all lawful process in any actions or proceedings against such foreign corp. arising from or growing out of such…tort.” Victim of libel may bring suit in any forum where the Δ has minimum contacts. To establish minimum contacts, the court focuses on the relationship between the Δ, forum, & the litigation. By circulating magazines purposefully throughout N.H., it inevitably affected persons in the state. Therefore, N.H. jurisdiction over a complaint based on those contacts would satisfy the requirement of the Due Process Clause of “minimum contacts” between the Δ & state.
· This leads to N.H.’s interest in exercising jurisdiction over such a case. Rest. 2d of Conflict of Laws § 36, Comment C, states “A state has a…interest in exercising judicial jurisdiction over those who commit torts w/in its territory…” This interest extends to actions brought by non-residents. False statements not only harm the subject, but the readers of such statements. Thus, N.H. has an interest in adjudicating an action of libel against a magazine that is sold in its state.
· The “single publication rule” allows the π in a libel suit against a publisher (a) only one action for damages; (b) recover all damages suffered in all jurisdictions in one action; and (c) bars any other action for damages between the same parties in all jurisdictions. It is relevant that the P is seeking to recover damages suffered in all states in this one suit, even though only a small portion of those copies were distributed in N.H.
· It has never been previously required that π have minimum contacts w/ the forum state. In fact, the court has upheld the assertion of jurisdiction where such contacts were entirely lacking. Lack of residence will not defeat jurisdiction established on the basis of Δ’s contacts.

DISPOSITION:
Reversed

DISSENT:
None

EVALUATION:
Here, R sold its magazine in N.H. (est. min. contacts) & contained in those magazines statements of defamation against P. Therefore, the court properly held that the N.H. court had personal jurisdiction over the R due to his contacts (sale of magazines) & b/c of its special interest in adjudicating actions committed w/in the state.

SYNTHESIS:
Jurisdiction over non-resident Δ is permitted where Δ has min. contacts such that maintenance of the suit doesn’t offend ‘traditional notions of fair play & substantial justice. In judging min. contacts, the court must focus on the relationship among the Δ, forum, & litigation. Lack of residence of the π will not defeat jurisdiction established on the basis of Δ’s contacts.