In the case of Burnside
v. Peterbilt Motors Co., 3:17-CV-2121 (M.D. Pa. June 28, 2018 Mariani, J.), the
court granted a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss based upon jurisdictional
objections.
This products liability claim arose out of an incident during which the Plaintiff was injured when a bobtail truck he was using began leaking propane and then caught fire.
Judge Mariani provided a detailed review of the current standards for properly finding jurisdiction over a foreign defendant in a Pennsylvania federal court matter.
In this matter, the court stated that the Plaintiffs did not
allege that the Defendant directed any activities to Pennsylvania or sent the
product at issue to Pennsylvania. The
court also noted that the Plaintiff did not even allege how the product came to
be in Pennsylvania.
The court ruled that a Plaintiff cannot establish personal jurisdiction over a Defendant through the stream of commerce theory under the facts of this case.
As such, the court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
but allowed the Plaintiff to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery before
the case was completely dismissed.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click
this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reeds Smith
law firm in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.