Federal District Court Addresses Jurisdictional Issues and also References Fair Share Act

In the case of Tanibajeva v. Skytop Lodge Corp., No. 3:23-CV-01846 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 3, 2024 Mehalchick, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion to Dismiss on jurisdictional issues in a case involving a zipline accident at a resort in the Poconos.

The court noted that the Plaintiff would be allowed to complete discovery in order to determine proper jurisdiction. 

Judge Mehalchick noted that, while a single shipment of a product in Pennsylvania is ordinarily not enough to confer specific personal jurisdiction, discovery in this case might reveal more significant contacts.

The court also noted that stream of commerce is not a valid jurisdictional theory. 

The court otherwise found that the Defendant in this case did not have regular and systemic Pennsylvania business.

However, the court found that the Plaintiff’s position on the jurisdiction issue was not frivolous. Accordingly, as noted, the court allowed for jurisdictional discovery to be completed.

In this Opinion, Judge Mehalchick also addressed the applicability of the Fair Share Act. 

The court noted its assessment that, under recent Pennsylvania case law, the Fair Share Act does not apply unless the Plaintiff’s potential comparative negligence is at issue. Accordingly, the court found that the allegations of joint and several liability by the Plaintiff were proper in this case. Judge Mehalchick also stated that, based upon her review of the Complaint, there did not appear to be a basis for an argument of comparative negligence.

The court also ruled that Pennsylvania law does not recognize a separate cause of action for willful and wanton misconduct or reckless indifference.

Judge Mehalchick also found the Plaintiff’s express warranty claims failed to plead that the Plaintiff purchased any product from the Defendants.  As such, that claim was dismissed.

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.

U.S. Supreme Court Reverses Pennsylvania Supreme Court and Upholds Pennsylvania Law Conferring Jurisdiction on Corporations Who Register To Do Business in PA

In the case of Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co, ___ U.S.___ (June 27, 2023) in a 4-1-4 plurality decision, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Pennsylvania law allowing state courts to hear lawsuits against out-of-state companies who had registered to conduct business in Pennsylvania, even when the alleged injury occurred outside of the Pennsylvania.  

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

Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania Addresses Issues of Personal Jurisdiction

In the case of Crockett v. Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 19-276 (E.D. Pa. June 11, 2020 Beetlestone, J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds. 

That a Defendant who designed a product that harmed an individual in Pennsylvania, in and of itself, is insufficient to establish jurisdiction

The court also ruled that a steam of commerce is not a viable jurisdictional theory. 

The court in this Crockett case more specifically indicated that a party who does not do any business in Pennsylvania does not subject itself to jurisdiction by cooperating with a third party that is engaged in business in Pennsylvania. A relationship with such a third party is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction under Pennsylvania law. 

The court emphasized that the Defendant at issue in this case had no contacts of its own in Pennsylvania. 

As such, that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was granted. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The related Court Order can be viewed HERE

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