Eastern District Court Dismisses German Office of Porsche From Products Liability Claim Due to Lack of Jurisdiction

In the case of Riad v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., No. 18-5175 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2023 Pratter, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s F.R.C.P. 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss based upon lack of jurisdiction.

In this matter, the Plaintiff had purchased a used Porsche from a non-Porsche-brand dealer. Years later, after noting problems with the vehicle’s engine and, the Plaintiff was instructed by Porsche to bring it to the nearest dealership for inspection and repair.

On the way to the dealership, smoke allegedly began coming through the AC vents into the passenger area allegedly causing the Plaintiff to suffer permanent lung damage and asthma.

The Plaintiff filed a products liability claim against or Porsche Cars North America, Inc. and Porsche AG.

Both Defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The court had previously ruled that it could exercise general personal jurisdiction over Porsche Cars North America.

The court granted Porsche AG’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The court first ruled that it did not have general personal jurisdiction over Porsche AG as that entity was not “at home” in Pennsylvania.  Rather, that company was incorporated in, and had its headquarters in, Germany.

The court denied to find that Porsche North America was a mere alter ego of Porsche, AG, which would have permitted the court to impute general personal jurisdiction.

Rather, the court found that there was sufficient evidence that the two entities were separate legal entities that interacted with each other pursuant to arm’s length agreement and that neither party exercised dominion or control over the other. 

The court additionally stated that there was an agreement between the parties that expressly disclaimed any authority for Porsche North America to act as an agent or legal representative of Porsche AG.

The court also found that it lacked specific jurisdiction over Porsche AG in that there was no evidence that that entity had purposefully directed its business activities in Pennsylvania.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (March 16, 2023).

Source of image:  Photo by Clement Roy on www.unsplash.com.   

Preliminary Objections on Jurisdictional Issues Granted in Favor of NJ Defendant Regarding NJ Accident

The common plea court in Monroe County addressed issues of general jurisdiction over a non-resident Defendant in the case of Carpintero v. Aegean Express, Inc., No. 2044-CV-2020 (C.P. Monroe Co. July 16, 2020 Williamson, J.).

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was a passenger on a transport bus traveling from Pennsylvania to New York City. The bus broke down on the highway in New Jersey under dark conditions. It was alleged that the bus did not have any hazard lights or any other reflective devices to alert other drivers to its presence on the roadway.

Another tortfeasor Defendant, was traveling along the highway and, when a third, unidentified vehicle swerved to avoid the bus, the named tortfeasor Defendant lost control of her vehicle and hit the rear of the bus. 

The Plaintiff sued the bus company and that identified tortfeasor. The identified tortfeasor filed Preliminary Objections asserting that the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas could not exercise personal jurisdiction over her because she had no ties to Pennsylvania. According to the Opinion not only did the accident occur in New Jersey but that identified tortfeasor resided in New Jersey. 

Judge David  J. Williamson
Monroe County

Judge Williamson ruled that the basis for exercising jurisdiction over persons outside of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is found under Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute, 42 Pa. C.S.A.§5322. The court noted that Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute establishes that, in order for a Pennsylvania court to exercise jurisdiction over a foreign party, that foreign party must have some “minimal contacts” with Pennsylvania. 

Finding no such contacts with the Defendant at issue in this matter, the court granted the Preliminary Objections and noted that the fact that the accident involved a bus owned by a Pennsylvania company which bus contained Pennsylvania residents did not constitute sufficient contacts to assert personal jurisdiction over the Defendant at issue. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 18, 2020).

Motion to Dismiss Granted in Products Case Based on Jurisdictional Issues

In the case of Winters v. Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry, LLC, No. 19-5398 (E.D. Pa. April 27, 2020 Schmehl, J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss filed by a product manufacturer on the basis that the manufacturer was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. 

In its decision, the court ruled that the Plaintiff could not rely upon a stream of commerce argument as a basis for specific jurisdiction.

The court also noted that the Plaintiff’s efforts to establish jurisdiction under Pennsylvania long-arm statute did not prevail. 

The court also held that jurisdiction may not be based upon a Defendant entering into contracts with Pennsylvania companies, since third party contacts are not relevant to the issue of personal jurisdiction. 

The court additionally held that an unrelated office of the Defendant located in Pennsylvania did not suffice to serve as a relevant contact. 

The court granted the Motion to Dismiss and severed the action against the product manufacturer and transferred that part of the case to Delaware, where that manufacturer was incorporated. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Split of Authority in Pennsylvania Federal District Courts on General Jurisdiction Issue

It appears that a dispute has arisen between the Federal District Courts of Pennsylvania as to whether or not Pennsylvania's long arm statute imposing general jurisdiction upon any foreign corporation registering to do business in Pennsylvania is constitutional.

In the case of Kraus v. Alcatel-Lucent, No. 18-2119 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2020 Savage, J.), the court ruled that Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute, which allows for general jurisdiction on any foreign corporation registering to do business in Pennsylvania, is constitutional. 

On the basis of this ruling, the court in Kraus denied a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Anyone wishing to review the Kraus decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

In contrast, in the case of Reynolds v. Turning Point Holding Co., No. 2:19-CV-01935-JDW (E.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2020 Wolson, J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction after finding, in part, that Pennsylvania’s statutory scheme requiring foreign corporations to consent to general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania by virtue of registering to do business in Pennsylvania violates the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. 

According to this Opinion, the Defendant franchiser involved in this matter did not have any significant contacts with Pennsylvania and the store where the Plaintiff was alleged injured was a separately maintained corporation.

The court in Reynolds ruled that the Defendant’s registration as a foreign corporation to do business in Pennsylvania was insufficient to subject it to general personal jurisdiction. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith law office in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.

Dramatic Shift in Law of Jurisdiction in Pennsylvania Over Foreign Corporations

The case of In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. IV), No. 18-3622 (E.D. Pa. June 6, 2019 Robreno, J.), which was handed down on Friday, alters the course of personal jurisdiction law in Pennsylvania relative to corporations.

In reviewing the history of the law on this issue, the court noted that, in 2014, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) which brought about “a sea change” in the jurisprudence of exercising general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation.

In Daimler, the United States Supreme Court held that under the Due Process Clause, subjecting a foreign corporation to general jurisdiction in every state in which it “engages in a substantial, continuous, and systematic course of business” was “unacceptably grasping.”

In this Asbestos Products Liabilty Litigation case, Judge Robreno noted that, under Daimler, the exercise of general jurisdiction over a foreign defendant (except in extraordinary circumstances) was limited to where the corporation was “at home,” namely, to those jurisdictions in which the foreign corporation was incorporated and where it maintained its principal place of business.  

Judge Robreno noted that, in contrast, Pennsylvania has long had a statute which requires a foreign corporation wishing to do business in Pennsylvania to register in Pennsylvania. Correspondingly, Pennsylvania law provides that such registration constitutes a sufficient basis for the exercise of general personal jurisdiction over the foreign corporation. 

As such, the courts in Pennsylvania had previously struggled with how to apply the law of Daimler in Pennsylvania.  Judge Robreno boldly laid that struggle to rest with his decision in the Asbestos Litigation case.

Judge Robreno concluded that: “(1) the Pennsylvania statutory scheme that requires foreign corporations to register to do business and, therefore, to consent to general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania, offends the Due Process Clause and is unconstitutional; and (2) the Third Circuit’s pre-Daimler decision in Bane v. Netlink, Inc., 925 F.2d 637 (3d Cir. 1991),  finding that, by registering to do business in Pennsylvania, a foreign corporation consents to general personal jurisdiction, is irretrievably irreconcilable with the teachings of Daimler, and can no longer stand.  

As such, it appears that the only way jurisdiction over foreign corporations can now exist in Pennsylvania is when the corporate defendant is “at home” here in Pennsylvania.  Stated otherwise, the Asbestos Products Liability Litigation case appears to lay down a bright line test that limits jurisdiction in Pennsylvania to those corporations who have a principal place of business in Pennsylvania or which are incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania.

Anyone wishing to review this In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. IV) decision may click this LINK.

UPDATE:  In an Order dated June 25, 2019, Judge Robreno certified the issue to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for a decision as an interlocutory appeal. 

I send thanks to Attorneys James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this notable decision to my attention.

PA Eastern Federal District Court Finds Long Arm Statute for Personal Jurisdiction Not Abrogated

In the case of Allstate Insurance Company v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., No. 5:18-00699(E.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2018 Leeson, J.), the court granted a Motion to Sever and Transfer a portion of the case.

The court ruled that the Plaintiff’s Complaint, joining together 86 separate subrogated incidents from many different states, could not stand before the Eastern District Federal Court.  

This decision is notable in that the court reaffirmed the rule that registration to do business in Pennsylvania, without more, is sufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a corporate Defendant.

Judge Leeson also reaffirmed the precedent holding that cases interpreting the Pennsylvania long arm statute in this regard have not be abrogated by more recent United States Supreme Court precedent.  

Relative to the claims in this matter, which arose under different states’ laws, the court felt that the claims should be severed.   After severance, the cases are considered to be separate cases, and many of them in this matter were found to fail to satisfy the diversity amount in controversy requirement, which necessitated the dismissal of those claims.   The remaining valid non-Pennsylvania cases  were ordered to be transferred to a more appropriate forum. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this case may click this LINK.  The Court's Order can be viewed HERE

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Personal Jurisdiction Issues Reviewed by Judge Brann in PA Federal Middle District Court Case

In the  products liability case of Mendoza v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., No. 4:17-02028 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2018 Brann, J.), the court reviewed various personal jurisdiction issues and denied a Plaintiff’s Motion for a Re-transfer of a Case.  

Of note, the court ruled that, since an argument of a lack of personal jurisdiction is waivable, and given that the Defendants had consciously waived personal jurisdiction issues in this matter, the Plaintiffs could not rely upon the lack of such jurisdiction to support a re-transfer of this action.  

Judge Brann otherwise held that Defendants that have registered to do business in Pennsylvania thereby consent to the exercise of personal jurisdiction by Pennsylvania courts.  

Judge Brann additionally reviewed Pennsylvania cases in this context and found that cases interpreting Pennsylvania’s long arm statute have not been abrogated by more recent United States Supreme Court precedent. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this case may click this   The court's Order can be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Pennsylvania Trial Court Dismisses Suit For Auto Accident That Occurred in New York

In her recent decision in the case of Ford v. Leal, No. 3471-CV-2016 (C.P. Monroe Co. Mar. 15, 2018 Harlacher Sibum, J.), Judge Jennifer Harlacher Sibum of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas sustained the Defendants’ Preliminary Objections and dismissed a Plaintiff’s Complaint in an automobile accident case due to lack of In Personam jurisdiction over the Defendants.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs were involved in a motor vehicle accident on the New York Thruway in Rockland County, New York.  

The Plaintiff filed suit in Monroe County, Pennsylvania and the Defendants filed Preliminary Objections under Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(1) asserting lack of jurisdiction of the Defendants.  

More specifically, the Defendants asserted that the court did not have any personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.   The Defendants asserted that they did not reside or own real property in Pennsylvania, that the subject accident did not occur in Pennsylvania, that the Defendants were not served in Pennsylvania, and that the courts of Pennsylvania lack general jurisdiction and specific personal jurisdiction under the Pennsylvania Long Arm Statute over the Defendants.  

Judge Jennifer Harlacher-Sibum
Monroe County

Judge Harlacher Sibum noted that, according to well-established Pennsylvania case law, an alleged out-of-state automobile accident alone is not enough for a Pennsylvania court to establish personal jurisdiction over a Defendant under the Long Arm Statute, even when the Plaintiff alleges a lasting injury that continues while the Plaintiff resides in Pennsylvania.   See Op. 4 citing with “See” signal DeFay v. McMeekin, 508 A.2d 324 (Pa. Super. 1986) [other citations omitted].  

On the basis of this law, the court found that the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas did not specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendants under Pennsylvania’s Long Arm Statute and, as such, the Complaint was dismissed.  


Anyone wishing to review this decision online may click this LINK.