ILNews

Editorial: Personal jurisdiction theories still evolving

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Federal Bar UpdateAs most litigators know, in Asahi Metal v. Superior Court of Cal., 480 U.S. 102 (1987), a plurality of the Supreme Court embraced the stream-of-commerce theory of personal jurisdiction, which generally holds that if a manufacturer or distributor has sufficient knowledge and control of its distribution system, it can be sued in a state in which its products cause injury. Since Asahi Metal, the theory has evolved somewhat in federal and state appellate courts but had not been revisited by the Supreme Court.

At the end of its recent term, the Supreme Court decided J. McIntyre Machiner v. Nicastro, No. 09-1343 (June 27, 2011), and by a 6-3 vote the court held that personal jurisdiction did not exist in this particular products-liability case. Unfortunately the court did not have a majority opinion on the applicable rule of law to be applied in these situations, with four justices proclaiming one rule, two another, and three yet another. What is certain is that for anyone with a personal jurisdiction battle, there is something for everyone in J. McIntyre, and the stream-of-commerce theory remains unsettled at best.

In the meantime, a brief summary follows. Plaintiff was injured in New Jersey using a metal-shearing machine manufactured by defendant in England, where the company is incorporated and based. Plaintiff sued in New Jersey, and the New Jersey Supreme Court held that personal jurisdiction existed under the Asahi stream-of-commerce concept.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, reversing. Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by the chief justice and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, concluded that because defendant never engaged in any activities in New Jersey that revealed an intent to invoke or benefit from New Jersey’s laws, New Jersey was without power to adjudge the company’s rights and liabilities. This foursome reasoned that Asahi and stream-of-commerce metaphors do not change fundamental 14th Amendment due process standards for personal jurisdiction. The principal inquiry, they proclaimed, is whether defendant’s activities manifest an intention to submit to the power of a sovereign.

Justices Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito agreed in a concurrence that personal jurisdiction did not exist, but found it unwise to announce a rule of broad applicability given that the case did not present issues arising from recent advances in commerce and communications. In dissent, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan would affirm the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling that personal jurisdiction existed.

7th Circuit rule change

Effective May 1, 7th Circuit Rule 25 was added requiring all documents to be electronically filed. 7th Circuit Rule 27 was added to address emergency filings. Finally, Circuit Rule 31(e) was rescinded. All 7th Circuit rules are available at www.ca7.uscourts.gov.

Mark your calendars

The annual Federal Civil Practice Seminar will be held Friday, Dec. 16, in Indianapolis.

Special call-out to help a family of the Bar

Jay Ruckelshaus, son of John Ruckelshaus of Baker & Daniels and grandson of long-time attorney Jack Ruckelshaus of Ruckelshaus Kautzman Blackwell Bemis & Hasbrook, was seriously injured recently in a diving accident. He has a severe spinal cord injury and is being treated at Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis. Jay is a remarkable young man who recently graduated as valedictorian of Cathedral High and was on his way to Duke as an Honors admittee.

Jay will face a long road ahead with many challenges, and likely uncovered expenses for some adaptive equipment and rehabilitation. At the request of Jay’s fellow graduates, the Joseph Maley Foundation is honored to dedicate its upcoming annual golf outing, Aug. 10 in Indianapolis, to celebrate Jay’s many accomplishments and provide support for Jay. For information, please see www.josephmaley.org.•

__________

John Maley – jmaley@btlaw.com – is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg, practicing federal and state litigation, employment matters, and appeals. The opinions expressed are those of the author.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT