Burnham v. Superior Court of California (1990)
Author: Bram

Cause of action: The following is a cause of action for motion to dismiss a filing for divorce by appellant's wife, which was denied by Superior Court.

Procedural History: DF made special appearance in light of the service of process in CA.  State courts rejected his claim of lack of personal jurisdiction, as he was personally served process while present in the forum state.

Facts: Burnham married his now ex-wife in 1976 in West VA.  In 1977, they moved to NJ, where their 2 kids were born.  In 1987, Burnhams separated, wife to CA, while husband stayed in NJ.

While on a business trip to CA, ex-husband visited ex-wife and took oldest son with him to SF.  Upon returning, he was served process by wife.

Issue(s): Whether dues process requires a similar connection between the litigation and the defendant's contact with the state in cases where the DF is physically present in the State at the time process is served upon him?

Court's Rationale/Reasoning: The only argument the Court even bothers to go into depth and refute is there should be no litigation on the charge because there was no activity in the state.  The two are not related here, as there was minimum contact here, as well as the fact Burnham was in the state at the time of process.

Rule: State court's assertion of personal jurisdiction satisfies the due process clause if it does not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.  This notion of fair play and substantial justice also applies to litigation and DF's contacts with the State when he is present there at the time of service.

Holding: Yes.  The husband was in the state when he was served, which is all that personal jurisdiction requires.