# Opposition Brief — R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Tuazon (No. 05-1525) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0974%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2006 ## Text | FILED NOV 8 - 2006 OFFICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT, U.S. No. 05-1525 === EEE IN THE Supreme Court of the United States R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, PETITIONER Nito D. TUAZON ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI 10 THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RESPONDENT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION DEFPAK GUPTA BRIAN WOLFMAN PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP 1600 20th Street, NW Washington. DC 20009 (202) 588-1000 PETER K. STRIS RADHA A. PATHAK WHITTIER LAW SCHOOL 3333 Harbor Boulevard Costa Mesa. CA 92626 (714) 444-4141] JEAN-CLAUDE ANDRE Counsel of Record IVEY, SMITH & RAMIREZ 2602 Cardiff Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90034 (310) 558-0932 SHAUN P. MARTIN UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO SCHOOL OF LAW 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 ~ (619) 260-2347 November 2006 s Cid a aan a ae i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a court’s exercise of general jurisdiction offends due process where the defendant’s contacts with the forum state include a permanent physical office and workforce of 45 full-time employees; extensive political activity in the state, including organizing local opposition to proposed city and state regulation; funding of medical research; advertising in purely local publications; substantial in-state business, including $145-240 million in annual net sales and a nearly one-third market share; and a license to do business in the state for over 60 years. il TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED ........... |e are TABLE OF CONTENTS ............-. ee ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............-..002000- iii no. . anes aN Seer eenines aS 7 a7 EPA NS! 2 REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT ............-- 6 A. The Question Presented Was Neither Raised Nor I ey ee eee ee 6 B. There Is No Conflict Over the Question Whether “Sales-Related Activities” May Support General I 5 Fave wanek cows bee eaaieuns oe ekee ees 8 C. The Rule That Reynolds Advocates Is Unsupported By This Court’s Cases and Would Be Unworkable SE 555.3. hin wb oka ti dea eis Reese caw deen 12 Re Perr een Tr rrr Teer rere 19 ili TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Aviation West Corp. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., SOOT. TO CW. BSFOD oid sv eccdeceveseveserss 3 Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, OS F328 20G CCAS DOOD) ooo cc cnccesecsaecsn nee. 1] Ass'n of Washington Pub. Hosp. Districts v. Philip Morris Inc., 241 F.3d 696 (CA9 2001) ......... 3 Associated Transp. Line, Inc. v. Productos Fitosanitarios Proficol El Carmen, SA, 197 F.3d 1070 (CA11 1999) ee ee ee re eee PO ee. Ptr er ee 11-12 Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. August Nat’l Inc., Peer Oe Pe SOD os oka beni reisccpereenns 5 _ Bearry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., CFS Fie FPO alee BOOED 6 ov ces wah aoe neSiee aes 11 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985)... 15 Glater v. Eli Lilly & Co., 744 F.2d 213 (CAI 1984) ...... 9 Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, SD i ON Fok ecsevncsddsrhesvne ine tay ae Int | Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) ...... 12, 13 Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984) Pee Pe Ere eS POTEET ee re 14-15, 17 iv Kimball ex rel. Kimball v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. C03-664JLR, 2006 WL 1148506 OWT dae WONG PUNE AO, ZOO) cc vircciwicevevessee Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal., 436 U.S. 84 (1978) .. Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510 (CA11 1990) ....... Nichols v. GD Searle & Co., P91 F.20 1393 (CAG 99S) «oe cece anes then nek The petition, without saying so explicitly, suggests (at 2) that Mr. Tuazon may have moved to the United States to sue Reynolds. See also Pet. App. 19a (observing that Reynolds “impugns Tuazon’s motives for moving to Washington, despite the long immigration process and the presence of his family in Washington.”). Mr. Tuazon’s residence, however, is irrelevant. Indeed, for due process purposes—which concerns the faimess of the forum for the defendant—this Court has already made clear that a plaintiff need not have any contact with the forum state, and Washington would thus have been a proper forum even had Mr. Tuazon continued to reside in the Philippines. See Keeton, 465 U.S. at 779-80 (“[W]e have not to date required a plaintiff to have ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum State before permitting that State to assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. On the contrary, we have upheld the assertion of jurisdiction where such contacts were entirely lacking.”’). To be sure, the plainuff's residence is “not completely irrelevant to the jurisdictional inquiry,” but that is only because the plaintiff's residence may in some cases “enhance defendant's contacts with the forum.” /d. at 780 (emphasis added). In any event, “Reynolds does not identify any specific hardship” it suffers from litigating in (continued...) 18 Reynolds’ rule would also inevitably lead to litigation and uncertainty about another issue: whether a particular defendant’s activities are properly characterized “sales-related.” This case offers a good illustration. The court below found general jurisdiction based not only on Reynolds’ sales activities, but also on such factors as the company’s extensive political and lobbying activity and its funding of medical research. Yet Reynolds apparently views all of these contacts as “sales-related activities.” Although litigation concerning jurisdictional questions can be wasteful and create uncertainty, as Reynolds acknowledges (at 24-25), those facts strongly counsel in favor of denying the petition. Reynolds advocates a thoroughly untested categorical rule, the contours of which are unclear and which, 1f adopted, would work a radical change in the American law of personal jurisdiction. A change of this magnitude would be guaranteed to disrupt the settled expectations of businesses, parties to contracts, and consumers. Before this Court entertains such a path-breaking proposal, the lower courts should be given an adequate and meaningful opportunity to test it. And because no court has adopted the bright-line rule that Reynolds seeks or considered contacts as substantial as Reynolds’ contacts in this case, the lower courts have not been given that opportunity. This Court’s intervention would, therefore, be unwarranted. ** kK * (...continued) Washington, Pet. App. | 8a, which is not surprising given its repeated appearance in Washington's state and federal courts, see supra note 1, and “has not seriously argued that litigating in Washington is more of a burden than being in the Philippines,” Pet. App. 19a. Even assuming some need to clarify aspects of the law of general jurisdiction, this case offers a particularly poor vehicle for doing so. Because Reynolds did not preserve its position below, because the question presented is not implicated by the facts of this case, and because the !ower courts are not in conflict, review by this Court is unwarranted. CONCLUSION The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied. Respectfully submitted, DEEPAK GUPTA BRIAN WOLFMAN PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP 1600 20th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 (202) 588-1000 PETER K. STRIS RADHA A. PATHAK WHITTIER LAW SCHOOL 3333 Harbor Boulevard Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 444-414] JEAN-CLAUDE ANDRE Counsel of Record IVEY, SMITH & RAMIREZ 2602 Cardiff Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90034 (310) 558-0932 SHAUN P. MARTIN UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO SCHOOL OF LAW 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 (619) 260-2347 November 2006 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0974%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.