Wallace v. Holden

"A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so 'continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home in the forum state. Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand, depends on an affiliatio[n] between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State’s regulation." Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A., v. Brown, 564 US 915, 919, 131 S Ct 2846, 180 L Ed 2d 796 (2011).

Plaintiff appealed a judgment dismissing her complaint with prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court's determination that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant. On appeal, Plaintiff argued Oregon courts had personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant had an active Oregon's driver license that he was "driving under the authority of" at the time of the auto accident in Washington. In response, Defendant, a nonresident, argued that Plaintiff failed to satisfy ORCP 4, Oregon’s long-arm statute, and failed to show that Defendant had minimum contacts in Oregon. "A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so 'continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home in the forum state. Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand, depends on an affiliatio[n] between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State’s regulation." Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A., v. Brown, 564 US 915, 919, 131 S Ct 2846, 180 L Ed 2d 796 (2011). The Court held that neither a general jurisdiction, under ORCP 4A(4), nor specific jurisdiction had been met because (1) “[D]efendant’s maintenance of his Oregon’s driver’s license, without more in the record, did not amount to ‘substantial and not isolated activities within th[e] state,’ and (2) “[D]efendant’s limited contacts in Oregon were not such that it was reasonably foreseeable that Defendant would be sued in Oregon. However, the Court found that because Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed with prejudice on a procedural matter, and not “on the merits,” Plaintiff should be free to bring her claim in another proper forum.

Judgment remanded for an entry of judgment dismissing without prejudice; otherwise affirmed.