The Court ruled that there is no general jurisdiction over
the moving third party Defendant in this matter. Rather, that Defendant was noted to be a
foreign company with a principle place
of business abroad. No minimal contacts
within Pennsylvania were seen in the record.
More specifically, the Opinion noted that the Defendant did not have
any physical presence in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Judge Robert D. Mariani M.D. Pa. |
However, the court in Wylam
ruled that a single in-state sale, without some additional conduct directed towards the
forum state, did not support the Plaintiff's stream of commerce jurisdiction argument.
The Court also noted that the fact that a Defendant’s
products are carried by national retailers is also insufficient to establish
jurisdiction in any state.
The court also generally noted that it is the burden of the
Plaintiff to establish jurisdiction and that speculation in this regard is not
sufficient.
As stated, the court denied the Motion to Dismiss without
prejudice. However, the Plaintiff was allowed to
complete jurisdictional discovery, limited to the stream of commerce
issue in an effort to gather further support for the jurisdictional arguments.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click
this LINK. The companion Order can be viewed HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia
office of the law firm of Reed Smith for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.