Personal Jurisdiction in the Fifth Circuit’s Commercial Opinions: 2012-13
This post has been viewed 2,542 times.
Introduction: The Supreme Court in 2011
In 2011, the Supreme Court revisited two thorny personal jurisdiction concepts – general jurisdiction, on which it had only written two previous opinions, and specific jurisdiction based on a “stream of commerce” theory. The Court had previously found general jurisdiction when a company had its headquarters in the forum state, Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining, 342 U.S. 437 (1952), and rejected general jurisdiction based on a company’s pattern of purchases from the forum state, Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984). In 2011, the Court again rejected general jurisdiction, this time based on the defendant’s sales into the forum state. Goodyear Dunlop Tires v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011). The European defendant did not market the allegedly defective tire in the forum state and made only a small percentage of its sales there, all of different types of tires than the allegedly defective one.
As to the “stream of commerce,” the case of J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011), involved an injury suffered in New Jersey from the use of a metal-shearing machine manufactured in England. The English manufacturer used an independent distributor to make sales in the U.S., travelled to annual conventions in the U.S., and had sold at no more than four machines into New Jersey, and possibly only one. The court found no personal jurisdiction but fractured in its reasoning, producing a four-Justice concurrence, a two-Justice concurrence written by Justice Breyer, and a dissent. While the plurality and the two-Justice concurrence differed about the breadth of the legal rule to resolve the case, both expressed concern about a view of the “stream of commerce” doctrine that would allow jurisdiction in a particular state based on a manufacturer’s general intent to do business across the country. In 2012 and 2013, the Fifth Circuit has now had the opportunity to apply these important new precedents.
Read original articleTags: general jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, the Court
