Burton Shipyard, Inc. v. The Honorable David W. Williams, United States District Judge for the Central District of California

(dissenting) :

I respectfully dissent.

In Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 251 , 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1238 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1957), the Supreme Court in discussing the burden of defending in a foreign jurisdiction stated: “However minimal the burden of defending in a foreign tribunal, a defendant may not be called upon to do so unless he has had the ‘minimal contacts’ with that State that are a prerequisite to its exercise of power over him. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).” The Court further stated “ * * * it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” 357 U.S. at 253 , 78 S.Ct. at 1240 .

In this case I find no such minimal contacts at all. The ship was built in Texas by a Texas company, for a Texas company, according to its design, and delivered and paid for in Texas. There is no clear evidence that defendant-petitioner Burton Shipyard was informed, or knew, that it was to be taken to California waters. 1

*642 The eases relied upon, in the…

Petitioner demands that we issue a writ of mandamus directed to respondent,-' requiring him to allow a F.R.Civ.P., *641 Rule 12(b) (2) motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person.

Petitioner, a Texas corporation, was the builder of the TRIPLE CROWN, a vessel which sank off the California coast in November, 1968. In the main action, pending in the Central District of California, multiple plaintiffs seek damages for injuries, property damage and the deaths of ten persons aboard the vessel at the time of the sinking. Petitioner is one of the defendants.

The sole issue is whether petitioner had the “minimum contacts” with the Central District within the meaning of that phrase as utilized in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220 , 78 S.Ct. 199 , 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957); Duple Motor Bodies, Ltd. v. Hol-lingsworth, 417 F.2d 231 (9th Cir. 1969).

Petitioner knew that some of the vessels it had constructed had been placed in oil exploration activities off the California coast. Additionally, the record discloses that petitioner had been purchasing steel in…

448 F.2d 640 BURTON SHIPYARD, INC., Petitioner, v. The Honorable David W. WILLIAMS, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, Respondent. No. 71-1458. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. September 2, 1971. Bruce I. Rauch (argued), Fletcher & Rauch, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Jack R. Ormes, Los Angeles, Cal., (argued), of Buck, Burrows & Smith, James H. Ackerman, Long Beach, Cal., Boccardo, Blum, Lull, Niland, Terflink & Bell, San Francisco, Cal., Magana, Olney, Levy & Cathcart, Bodle, Fogel, Julber & Reinhardt, Los Angeles, Cal., William T. Selby, Ventura, Cal., for real parties in interest. Sikes, Pinney & Matthew, North Hollywood, Cal., Harlow & Chier, Century City, Cal., McCutceon, Black, Verleger & Shea, Lillick, McHose, Wheat, Adams & Charles, Los Angeles, Cal., Eckdale & Shallenberger, San Pedro, Cal., for other defendants. Before HAMLIN, HAMLEY and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges. KILKENNY, Circuit Judge: 1 Petitioner demands that we issue a writ of mandamus directed to respondent; requiring him to allow a F.R.Civ.P., Rule 12(b) (2) motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the…