Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.
Brief Fact Summary.
Plaintiff sued Defendant for libel in the United States District Court for the District of New
Hampshire under its diversity jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction. The court of appeals affirmed. Plaintiff appealed.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Personal jurisdiction is proper over a nonresident magazine in any state where that corporation
has sold and distributed a substantial number of copies.
Facts.
Kathy Keeton (Plaintiff), a resident of New York, sued Hustler Magazine, Inc. (Hustler) and
others (Defendants) for libel in the United States District Court for the District of New
Hampshire under its diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff claims that Defendants committed libel
against her in five issues of its magazine published between 1975 and 1976. Plaintiff has no
contacts with the state of New Hampshire other than through a magazine she helps produce.
Hustler is a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio, and its principal place of business is
in California. Hustler sells between 10,000 and 15,000 copies of its magazine in New
Hampshire per month. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction. The court of appeals affirmed on the ground that Plaintiff lacked sufficient contacts
with New Hampshire to justify the state’s personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Further, the
court of appeals placed significant weight on the fact that New Hampshire’s six-year statute of
limitations for libel made it the only state in which Plaintiff’s suit could still be brought and that
the “single publication rule” meant that, if successful, Plaintiff would be able to recover for
damages suffered in all fifty states. For these reasons, the court of appeals considered
personal jurisdiction over Defendants unfair. Plaintiff petitioned the United States Supreme
Court for certiorari, which was granted.
Issue.
Whether personal jurisdiction is proper in a libel action against a magazine in a state where its
only contacts are magazine sales.
Held.
Yes. The court of appeals’ ruling is reversed and the case is remanded.
Concurrence.
Brennan, J. : The contacts between the Defendants and the forum State are sufficiently
important and sufficiently related to the underlying cause of action to foreclose any concern
that the constitutional limits of the Due Process Clause are being violated. These interests of
the State should be relevant only to the extent that they bear upon the liberty interests of
Page 1 of 2
Defendants that are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. "The restriction on state
sovereign power described in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291-
292 (1980) must be seen as ultimately a function of the individual liberty interest preserved by
the Due Process Clause. That Clause is the only source of the personal jurisdiction
requirement and the Clause itself makes no mention of federalism concerns.
Take Quick Topic Quiz
Discussion.
Due process forbids the assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation
unless the corporation has sufficient minimum contacts with the state. Hustler’s “regular
circulation” of its magazines within the state of New Hampshire constitutes sufficient contacts
to justify the assertion of personal jurisdiction over it for a libel claim related to statements
made in the magazine. Defendants purposefully sought to do business in the state of New
Hampshire and regularly sells thousands of magazines per month there. Further, New
Hampshire has an interest in adjudicating harm that occurs inside its borders. This includes a
case involving libel committed in the state, even if committed against a nonresident. The court
of appeals’ concern with New Hampshire’s unusually long statute of limitations and the
possibility of an unfair damage award was misplaced. Choice of law matters have no bearing
on a forum’s right to assert personal jurisdiction over a party. In addition, a plaintiff’s contacts
with a forum state have no relevance to whether personal jurisdiction exists over the
defendant. It is Defendants’ contacts that are at issue, and while they might not be sufficient to
justify general personal jurisdiction over unrelated claims, Defendants’ continued business
justifies specific personal jurisdiction over claims related to that business. Moreover, the fact
that a plaintiff resides outside the state will not destroy personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
Even though Plaintiff’s damages would likely be greater in her home state, there is no
prohibition on bringing libel actions elsewhere. Defendants purposefully availed themselves of
the privileges of doing business in New Hampshire, and should reasonably anticipated being
haled into court for claims related to the magazine it sells there. National publications may
properly be sued for their content anywhere “a substantial number of copies are regularly sold
and distributed.”
Page 2 of 2
