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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT