Army Times Pub. Co. v. Watts, 83-7220

Citation730 F.2d 1398
Decision Date26 April 1984
Docket NumberNo. 83-7220,83-7220
Parties10 Media L. Rep. 1774 ARMY TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, v. Robert E. WATTS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

Michael S. Horne, Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C., M. Roland Nachman, Jr., Montgomery, Ala., for defendant-appellant.

Albert W. Copeland, Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, Dexter C. Hobbs, Thomas T. Gallion, III, Will Gunter, Gallion, Gallion & Gunter, Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

Before KRAVITCH, JOHNSON and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges.

KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge:

The plaintiffs, Robert E. Watts, Gregory Pritchett, and Continental Hotel Group, Inc., brought suit against defendant Army Times Publishing Company (ATPC) alleging that they were libeled by an article published in the defendant's publication, Federal Times. Entitled "The Best Little Whorehouse?", the article concerned a congressional inquiry into a loan guarantee of almost one million dollars made by the FHA to refurbish a motel owned by the Continental Hotel Group, an Alabama corporation. Plaintiffs Watts and Pritchett are both officers of the corporation.

The defendant moved to dismiss the action on the basis that no personal jurisdiction existed in Alabama. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion, finding sufficient contacts for personal jurisdiction. The district court, however, granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify its order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) for interlocutory appeal because the jurisdictional issue was a controlling question of law "as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b). This court agreed to hear the appeal.

I. Jurisdictional Facts

The relevant jurisdictional facts as found by the district court are undisputed by the parties. The court found:

1. During all times relevant, the Federal Times was a weekly newspaper based in Washington, D.C. and designed to appeal principally to federal civilian employees.

2. On November 24, 1980, and again on May 25, 1981, Alabama accounted for approximately 2.1% of the Federal Times ' total circulation, with between 914 and 928 of the newspaper's issues circulated in the state on each of said dates; and California accounted for the largest percentage of the newspaper's total circulation, with between 11.6 and 11.9% of the newspaper's total circulation on each of said dates, followed by Washington, D.C. and the surrounding area, with between 11.6 and 11.8% of the newspaper's total circulation on each of said dates.

3. Almost all of the Federal Times ' circulation in Alabama was by mail subscription.

4. The Federal Times ' derived $1,591.20 in classified advertising from Alabama, an amount representing less than 1/2 of 1% of the newspaper's total advertising revenue.

5. All the information used in the allegedly libelous article was gathered from sources in Washington, D.C.

6. At the year-end 1980 and 1981, the Federal Times had twelve full-time and part-time regular employees, all located in Washington, D.C., and had several "stringers" located throughout the country but not in Alabama.

7. ATPC is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Washington, D.C.

8. In addition to the Federal Times, ATPC publishes three other weekly newspapers, the Army Times, the Navy Times, and the Air Force Times, all directed to military personnel, and it publishes two monthly newspapers, the Times Magazine, which is distributed with the three military newspapers, and the Military Market, which is distributed free of charge to exchange and commissary managers.

9. On November 24, 1980, and December 21, 1981, the "total number of subscribers in Alabama" for all of ATPC's publications ranged from a circulation of 7,053 to 7,417, and the "total paid circulation in Alabama" for all of ATPC's publications ranged from a circulation of 7,988 to 8,307.

10. ATPC had three Alabama distributing agents who were paid a commission for each publication issue sold by them through military exchange newsstands and vending machines.

11. ATPC derived $219,200.00 in 1980 and $245,900.00 in 1981 from the sale of all its publications in Alabama; and for 1980 approximately 6/10 of 1% and for 1981 approximately 7/10 of 1% of the company's total advertising revenues came from classified advertising purchased by persons residing or stationed in Alabama.

12. ATPC owned and operated the Army Times Marketing Service, which solicited renewal subscriptions in Alabama and throughout the rest of the country for all of the company's publications as well as those of other publishers and solicited renewals of several credit cards. ATPC estimates that for 1980, and again for 1981, the Marketing Service made approximately 3,500 renewal solicitation telephone calls on behalf of all the service's clients to persons in Alabama, with approximately 395 of these calls being on behalf of Federal Times.

From this evidence, the court concluded that "a picture emerges of [ATPC] as a nationwide publishing operation designed, through its weekly newspapers and monthly magazines and its national marketing service, to penetrate and exploit the various pockets of federal civilian and military personnel scattered throughout the country." It also found that Alabama was "a significant market, if not one of several principal markets, for the newspaper."

II. The Sufficiency of ATPC's Contacts

Based on its factual findings, the district court concluded that adequate contacts existed between the defendant and Alabama to make it fair and reasonable to require ATPC to defend in that state. It found that although the actual circulation figures for Federal Times in Alabama of between 914 and 928 a month were not quantitatively great, the "quality and nature" of the defendant's activities in the state were such that it justified a finding of personal jurisdiction. In making its determination, the district court relied on this circuit's law that where first amendment considerations are present the plaintiff must make "a greater showing of contact to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Madara v. Hall
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • November 7, 1990
    ...a libel case; the "personal jurisdiction inquiry in a libel case is the same as that used in all cases...." Army Times Publishing Co. v. Watts, 730 F.2d 1398, 1408 (11th Cir.1984). A. Florida Long-Arm The reach of the Florida long-arm statute is a question of Florida law. Therefore, federal......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT