{ "id": 1580193, "name": "Barbara KATHREIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PARKVIEW MEADOWS, INC., Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Kathrein v. Parkview Meadows, Inc.", "decision_date": "1984-11-29", "docket_number": "No. 15545", "first_page": "75", "last_page": "77", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "102 N.M. 75" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "691 P.2d 462" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "83 N.M. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5341816 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "nonresident defendant hired resident plaintiff to arrange advertising and solicit orders for defendant's products in New Mexico, defendant paid a salary to plaintiff in New Mexico and shipped products to New Mexico; jurisdiction asserted over defendant" }, { "parenthetical": "nonresident defendant hired resident plaintiff to arrange advertising and solicit orders for defendant's products in New Mexico, defendant paid a salary to plaintiff in New Mexico and shipped products to New Mexico; jurisdiction asserted over defendant" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/83/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "445 N.E.2d 371", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 Ill.Dec. 891", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. Dec.", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "112 Ill.App.3d 149", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5433908 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/112/0149-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 N.M. 532", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2840666 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "534" }, { "page": "827" }, { "parenthetical": "nonresident defendant was contacted in California by resident plaintiff and parties entered into contract; no jurisdiction over defendant" }, { "parenthetical": "nonresident defendant was contacted in California by resident plaintiff and parties entered into contract; no jurisdiction over defendant" }, { "page": "534" }, { "page": "827" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/88/0532-01" ] }, { "cite": "357 U.S. 235", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6162253 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1958, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "253" }, { "page": "1240" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/357/0235-01" ] }, { "cite": "326 U.S. 310", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6157001 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1945, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "316" }, { "page": "158" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/326/0310-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 N.M. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "83 N.M. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5341816 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/83/0469-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 481, "char_count": 9356, "ocr_confidence": 0.78, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4450495526088467e-07, "percentile": 0.6539491298527443 }, "sha256": "96af7c3561696ebfcafb5f51cebf9caa56d62f4e9eededc3814a5dadbbfa5ff7", "simhash": "1:397fd57af1d1dc6a", "word_count": 1424 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:42:54.117025+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "SOSA, Senior Justice, and RIORDAN, and WALTERS, JJ., concur.", "STOWERS, J., dissents." ], "parties": [ "Barbara KATHREIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PARKVIEW MEADOWS, INC., Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nFEDERICI, Chief Justice.\nThis case is before us on writ of certiorari from the Court of Appeals. The only issue raised is whether the defendant\u2019s contacts with the State of New Mexico were sufficient to constitute a \u201ctransaction of business\u201d within the State, so that the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction under the New Mexico long-arm statute, NMSA 1978, Section 38-1-16. The trial court denied a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and certified the question to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals stated that the defendant\u2019s activities within New Mexico did not rise to the level of transacting business, and held that the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction should be granted. We reverse.\nBarbara Kathrein, the plaintiff-petitioner (plaintiff), is a New Mexico resident. Park-view Meadows, Inc., the defendant-respondent (defendant) is a Minnesota corporation which operates an alcoholism treatment center, known as \u201cThe Meadows,\u201d in Arizo- ' na. At the time this cause of action arose, defendant carried on certain activities in New Mexico: defendant advertised its alcoholism treatment center in the yellow pages of the Albuquerque telephone directory for the years 1981 and 1982, and defendant contacted the director of the Albuquerque affiliate of the National Council on Alcoholism to solicit his referral of patients to the treatment center. Plaintiffs husband attended the treatment program in Arizona, in August 1982. While her husband was undergoing treatment, plaintiff herself received in the mail a brochure from defendant, inviting her to attend the treatment program\u2019s \u201cFamily Week.\u201d An employee of defendant also telephoned plaintiff from Arizona, to encourage her attendance. In response to this solicitation, plaintiff attended Family Week, for which she was charged a fee.\nThe complaint alleges that as a result of her participation in Family Week, plaintiff suffered personal injury in the form of emotional and psychological trauma. Because process was served in Arizona and service was not obtained under NMSA 1978, Section 38-1-6, jurisdiction must be established under the long-arm statute, NMSA 1978, Section 38-1-16. The relevant portion of the statute provides for jurisdiction over any person who transacts \u201cany business\u201d within the state, as to any cause of action \u201carising from\u201d that transaction of business. NMSA 1978, \u00a7 38-l-16(A)(l).\nThe Court of Appeals held that defendant\u2019s ongoing solicitation activities in New Mexico \u2014 its solicitation of referrals and its advertising in the phone directory \u2014 did not bear a close relationship to the plaintiff\u2019s cause of action, and therefore could not be the basis of long-arm jurisdiction over defendant. The long-arm statute requires that the cause of action arise from the defendant\u2019s transaction of business within the State. However, defendant\u2019s invitation to plaintiff to attend the program\u2019s Family Week, and plaintiff\u2019s subsequent attendance, were an integral part of defendant\u2019s overall program of alcoholic treatment. The invitation followed by attendance were a direct outgrowth of defendant\u2019s general solicitation for business in New Mexico. This cause of action does arise out of defendant\u2019s solicitation of business in New Mexico.\nThe Court of Appeals further held that defendant\u2019s phone call to the plaintiff, and mailing of a brochure to her, were insufficient to constitute a transaction of business within New Mexico. The Court of Appeals apparently reasoned that some further impact within the State, beyond mere solicitation, is necessary if jurisdiction over defendant is to meet statutory and constitutional standards. Those acts, however, taken together with defendant\u2019s general solicitation activities within the State, were of sufficient magnitude, and were sufficiently related to the cause of action, that exercise by New Mexico courts of jurisdiction over defendant is proper.\nThe constitutional requirement relating to personal jurisdiction was announced in International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), in which the Court stated that, for due process standards to be met, the defendant need have only \u201ccertain minimum contacts\u201d with the forum state \u201csuch that the maintenance of the suit does not offend \u2018traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.\u2019 \u201d Such minimum contacts clearly existed in this case. Defendant\u2019s activities within the State were continuous and purposeful. Defendant availed itself \u201cof the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.\u201d Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1240, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958).\nNew Mexico\u2019s statutory standard for obtaining long-arm jurisdiction has been \u201crepeatedly equated\u201d with the due process standard of \u201cminimum contacts.\u201d Telephonic, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 88 N.M. 532, 534, 543 P.2d 825, 827 (1975). The Court of Appeals correctly noted that various factors are relevant in determining whether a' nonresident defendant transacted any business within the State, including the voluntariness of the defendant\u2019s contact with the State, the nature of the transaction, the applicability of New Mexico law, the contemplation of the parties, and the location of likely witnesses. See Empress International, Ltd. v. Riverside Seafoods, Inc., 112 Ill.App.3d 149, 67 Ill.Dec. 891, 445 N.E.2d 371 (1983).\nGiven the level of defendant\u2019s activity within New Mexico, it seems fair to say that its conduct in this State was entirely voluntary, and that it reasonably could have contemplated being subject to New Mexico jurisdiction. In this respect the instant case is distinguishable from Telephonic, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 88 N.M. 532, 543 P.2d 825 (1975) (nonresident defendant was contacted in California by resident plaintiff and parties entered into contract; no jurisdiction over defendant), and is more analogous to Winward v. Holly Creek Mills, Inc., 83 N.M. 469, 493 P.2d 954 (1972) (nonresident defendant hired resident plaintiff to arrange advertising and solicit orders for defendant\u2019s products in New Mexico, defendant paid a salary to plaintiff in New Mexico and shipped products to New Mexico; jurisdiction asserted over defendant). Also, while the factors listed by the Court of Appeals are generally relevant, the applicability of the long-arm statute \u201cmust be determined by the facts in each case.\u201d Telephonic, Inc., 88 N.M. at 534, 543 P.2d at 827. Under the facts in this case, defendant\u2019s activity within the State clearly rose to the level of transacting business. It is not singly significant to the result we reach that plaintiff travelled to Arizona to attend \u201cFamily Week.\u201d Plaintiff went there to participate in the treatment program which her husband was attending as a result of defendant\u2019s earlier solicitation in New Mexico. Defendant\u2019s total activities in New Mexico were sufficient to subject defendant to the jurisdiction of the New Mexico court in this case.\nFor reasons stated, we reverse the Court of Appeals, affirm the trial court, and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nSOSA, Senior Justice, and RIORDAN, and WALTERS, JJ., concur.\nSTOWERS, J., dissents.", "type": "majority", "author": "FEDERICI, Chief Justice." }, { "text": "STOWERS, Justice,\ndissenting.\nI dissent. The majority conclude that \u201c[djefendant\u2019s total activities in New Mexico were sufficient to subject defendant to the jurisdiction of the New Mexico court in this case.\u201d However, defendant\u2019s activities consisted only of a phone call and the mailing of a brochure from Arizona to plaintiff in New Mexico. This does not constitute the transaction of business.\nThe record indicates that the advertisement of defendant\u2019s alcoholism treatment center in the yellow pages of the Albuquerque telephone directory for the years 1981 and 1982 only gave Arizona phone numbers; therefore, one would expect that any business done with \u201cThe Meadows\u201d would have to be done in Arizona. Although \u201cThe Meadows\u201d made contact with the director of the Albuquerque affiliate of the National Council on Alcoholism to solicit his referral of patients to the treatment center, the record does not disclose whether such referrals ever took place.\nFinally, plaintiff failed to establish any relationship between these activities and her cause of action. The long-arm statute requires a close relationship between a nonresident defendant\u2019s jurisdictional activities and the cause of action against which he must defend. Winward v. Holly Creek Mills, Inc., 88 N.M. 469, 493 P.2d 954 (1972). Plaintiff\u2019s cause of action arises from conduct which Arizona rather than New Mexico has the most, if not all, significant connections.\nBecause of the foregoing, I agree with the rationale of the Court of Appeals and their conclusion that \u201cplaintiff has not sustained her burden to demonstrate a cause of action arising from a jurisdicitonal act specified by statute.\u201d Plaintiff\u2019s complaint should be dismissed.", "type": "dissent", "author": "STOWERS, Justice," } ], "attorneys": [ "Martin & Hilton, P.A., Robert Hilton, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellee.", "Miller, Stratvert, Torgerson & Brandt, P.A., Stephen M. Williams, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "691 P.2d 462\nBarbara KATHREIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PARKVIEW MEADOWS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 15545.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nNov. 29, 1984.\nMartin & Hilton, P.A., Robert Hilton, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellee.\nMiller, Stratvert, Torgerson & Brandt, P.A., Stephen M. Williams, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0075-01", "first_page_order": 113, "last_page_order": 115 }