U.S. Supreme Court Latest Pronouncement on Personal Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Defendants In a Products Liability Case

The United States Supreme Court recently issued a notable decision in the case of Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, No. 19-368 (U.S. March 25, 2021), in which the Court affirmed a decision finding the existence of personal jurisdiction over products liability claims by an in-state plaintiff for in-state injuries against an out-of-state defendant.

Defendant Ford had sought to extend the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), which rejected personal jurisdiction over claims by out-of-state plaintiffs against out-of-state defendants for out-of-state injuries.

Ford asserted that, under the Bristol-Myers analysis, specific jurisdiction requiresd a “causal link” between the defendant’s forum contacts and the plaintiff’s claims, which was not present in this Ford case because the cars involved in the accidents were not designed, manufactured, or first sold in-state.

The five-justice majority disagreed.  The majority rejected a strict causal link standard and distinguishing the forum-shopping circumstances of Bristol-Myers from the claims in Ford by in-state plaintiffs for in-state injuries. The majority held that the Court’s specific jurisdiction standard includes suits that sufficiently “relate to” a defendant’s forum contacts, even in the absence of a causal link.

Applying this standard to the two cases before it, the majority held that Ford’s activities in Montana and Minnesota, including marketing, selling, and servicing the same models of cars at issue in the cases, enticed residents to purchase Ford cars and, as such, were sufficiently related to the plaintiffs’ claims to create specific jurisdiction over their suits. The Court held: “Ford had systematically served a market in Montana and Minnesota for the very vehicles that the plaintiffs allege malfunctioned and injured them in those States. So there is a strong ‘relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation,’—the ‘essential foundation’ of specific jurisdiction.”

Commentators have noted that now, following the Ford decision, it appears that a defendant’s showing that a plaintiff’s claim does not arise out of or is not causally linked to the defendant’s conduct in the forum state may not be enough to prevail on a defense argument that a court lacks personal jurisdiction if a plaintiff can show that the claim sufficiently “relates to” the defendant’s conduct in the state.

Commentators have also noted that the Bristol-Myers analysis still also stands.  Those commentators have asserted that the Ford decision does not disturb the U.S. Supreme Court’s previous rejection in Bristol-Myers of specific jurisdiction over claims by non-resident plaintiffs against a non-resident company whose product allegedly injured the plaintiffs. 

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Dale Larrimore of the Philadelphia law firm of Larrimore & Farnish, LLP for bringing this decision to my attention.

President Obama Nominates Kagan To U.S. Supreme Court

On Monday, May 10, 2010, President Obama announced that he was nominating Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court. If she is appointed she will be the youngest justice and would give the Court three female Justices for the first time ever.


Some background information on the nominee can be found in this link to a May 9, 2010 article by a Peter Baker and a Jeff Zeleny in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10court.html?scp=1&sq=Obama%20Kagan&st=cse

Justice Stevens to Retire From United States Supreme Court

By now you have surely heard that Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed to the Supreme Court in 1975 by President Gerald Ford, sent a letter to the White House on Friday morning announcing his intention to retire from the United States Supreme Court when it concludes its business over this upcoming summer. To read Justice Stevens' letter to the President, click this link (a short note, but still pretty neat to see): http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100409-JohnPaulStevens-Letter.pdf.

President Obama now has a rare opportunity to make back-to-back nominations to the Court. Whereas during the Reagan and Bush years, there were appointments of Justices with a decidedly conservative bent, it is anticipated by the commentators that President Obama will continue his efforts to create a Bench where the pendulum shifts to left of center.

In an oft-repeated quote issued during his campaign for the Presidency pertaining to the selection of judges, Obama stated, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I am going to be selecting my judges."

After Justice Stevens' announcement of his planned retirement, President Obama has been quoted as saying he would look for a candidate who possessed what he described as qualities similar to that of Justice Stevens: “an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.”

According to the news articles, the President may be considering up to ten candidates, but that three have emerged as front-runners: Merrick B. Garland, 58, a federal appeals court judge in Washington, D.C., Elena Kagan, 49, the solicitor general and former Harvard Dean, and Diane P. Wood, 59, a federal appeals judge and former fellow law professor of President Obama at the University of Chicago.

Source: Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Gary Savage. "Stevens' Retirement is Political Test for Obama." New York Times article (4/10/10).

United States Supreme Court Adopts Headquarters Test for Diversity Jurisdiction

In its 9-0 decision issued earlier this week on February 23, 2010 in the case of Hertz Corp. v. Friend, the United States Supreme Court addressed the confusion among state courts regarding the appropriate standard to establish a corporate or company defendant's place of business in a diversity case. The Court ruled that a company should be considered a citizen of a state where its “nerve center” is located.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote that "In practice it should normally be the place where the corporation maintains its headquarters."

It is anticipated by legal commentators that the “nerve center” test will be used to establish diversity jurisdiction, allowing more lawsuits to be tried in federal rather than state courts. Thus, it is expected that this decision will serve to hamper forum shopping efforts by plaintiffs.

In this case, the Court rejected arguments by Hertz employees in a wage-and-hour suit that Hertz’s principal place of business was in California, where more of its business activities take place, even though its headquarters is in New Jersey.

In his opinion, Breyer noted that there will still be cases that are difficult to under the “nerve center” test for diversity jurisdiction. “For example, in this era of telecommuting, some corporations may divide their command and coordinating functions among officers who work at several different locations, perhaps communicating over the Internet,” he wrote. “That said, our test nonetheless points courts in a single direction, towards the center of overall direction, control, and coordination.”

The opinion (PDF) of Hertz Corp. v. Friend can be viewed by clicking this link:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1107.pdf.

Source: Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal Law News Now (Feb. 26, 2010) http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/article/supreme_court_adopts_headquarters_test_hampering_forum-shopping_plaintiffs (citing Reuters and The Wall Street Journal).