9/16/05 Kelley Williams

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

471 U.S. 462, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528

Location: US Supreme Court, 1985

Page: Civ Pro 108
Procedural Facts: P-Burger King sued D-Rudzewicz for damages in FL. The trial
court entered judgment for P. Court of appeals reversed because n
personal jurisdiction. Reversed and Remanded
Facts: Burger King is a FL Corp. and they have franchises around country.
Monthly fees are paid to FL, contract established FL law governs
actions, and works directly from Miami to resolve major problems.
D entered into a contract to open Burger King in MI. D fell behind
on payments.
Issue: Does the FL court have personal jurisdiction over a franchisee in
MI?
Loser’s Claim: No, they only did business with local office in MI and had no fair
notice that suit would be brought in FL.
Rule of Law: Once it has been decided that a D purposefully established
minimum contacts within the forum State, these contacts may be
considered in light of other factors to determine whether the
assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with “fair play and
substantial justice.
Holding: The district court of FL did not offend due process and had personal
jurisdiction over the D.
Reasoning:  The franchise dispute grew directly out of “a contract which
had a substantial connection with the state”
 D “purposefully availed himself of the benefits and
protections of FL’s laws by entering into contracts expressly
providing that those laws would govern franchise disputes.
 D did not prove that circumstances to outweigh FL claim to
jurisdiction.
 Sum—D established a substantial, continuous relationship
with Burger King Head-quarters in Miami, had fair notice
that suit could be brought in FL by documents, and failed to
prove how jurisdiction in FL would be fundamentally unfair.
Summary:
Other: Dissent There is significant unfairness. D had reason to believe he was
conducting business outside of MI.