Omni Capital International, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Company

PETITIONER: Omni Capital International, Ltd.
RESPONDENT: Rudolf Wolff & Company
LOCATION: Chelsea, Michigan

DOCKET NO.: 86-740
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

CITATION: 484 US 97 (1987)
ARGUED: Oct 06, 1987
DECIDED: Dec 08, 1987

ADVOCATES:
Elliot Paskoff - on behalf of Respondents
Robert A. Kutcher - on behalf of the Petitioners

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Omni Capital International, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Company

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 06, 1987 in Omni Capital International, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Company

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - December 08, 1987 in Omni Capital International, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Company

William H. Rehnquist:

The opinion of the Court in No. 86-740, Omni Capital Investment versus Rudolf Wolff & Company will be announced by Justice Blackmun.

Harry A. Blackmun:

This case comes to us by way of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

It does not lend itself well to announcement from the Bench and I think it will be suffice to say that the primary issue is whether a Federal Court in Louisiana had personal jurisdiction over a British Corporation and the person who is a citizen of the United Kingdom.

The District Court and the Court of Appeals ruled that personal jurisdiction was lacking and that the requirements of the Louisiana long-arm statute were not met.

We affirm that judgment.

The requirement of personal jurisdiction here flows from the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and noticed to the defendant and the constitutionally sufficient relationship between the defendant and the four or more not in themselves enough.

The defendant also must be amenable to service of summons, and we refrained from treating judicially a common law rule that authorizes service in this litigation, and that responsibility we feel rest with those who proposed the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and with Congress.

The opinion is unanimous.