Supreme Court Issues General Jurisdiction Opinion

The U.S. Supreme Court rued last week that defendant DaimlerChrysler Corp. could not be sued in in California over an Argentine subsidiary’s alleged tortious conduct under the theory of general jurisdiction.  See Daimler AG v. Barbara Bauman et al., No. 11-965 (U.S. 1/14/14).

Plaintiffs were twenty-two residents of Argentina who filed suit in California Federal District Court, naming as a defendant DaimlerChrysler Aktiengesellschaft (Daimler),a German public stock company that is the predecessor to the petitioner, Daimler AG.  Their complaint alleged that Mercedes-Benz Argentina (MB Argentina), an Argentinian subsidiary of Daimler, engaged in various illegal conduct respecting unions from 1976 to 1983 in Argentina. Personal jurisdiction over Daimler was predicated on the California contacts of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA), yet another Daimler subsidiary, one incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New Jersey.  (MBUSA distributes Daimler-manufactured vehicles to independent dealerships throughout the United States, including California.)  

Daimler moved to dismiss the action for want of personal jurisdiction. Opposing that motion, plaintiffs argued that jurisdiction over Daimler could be founded on the California contacts of MBUSA. The District Court granted Daimler’s motion to dismiss. Reversing the District Court’s judgment, the Ninth Circuit held that MBUSA, which it assumed to fall within the California courts’ all-purpose jurisdiction, was Daimler’s “agent” for jurisdictional purposes, so that Daimler, too, should generally be answerable to suit in that State. Daimler moved for cert.

The Supreme Court held that Daimler was not amenable to suit in California for injuries allegedly caused by conduct of MB Argentina that took place entirely outside the United States.

California’s long-arm statute allows the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the full extent permissible under the U. S. Constitution. Thus, the inquiry here became whether the Ninth Circuit’s holding comported with the limits imposed by federal due process. International Shoe distinguished exercises of specific, case-based jurisdiction from a category known as “general jurisdiction,” exercisable when a foreign corporation’s continuous corporate operations within a state are so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it even on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities. Since International Shoe, specific jurisdiction has become the centerpiece of modern jurisdiction theory. The Supreme Court’s general jurisdiction opinions, in contrast, have been few.

The Court said that even assuming, for purposes of this decision, that MBUSA qualifies as at home in California, Daimler’s affiliations with California were not sufficient to subject it to the general jurisdiction of that State’s courts. Whatever role "agency" theory might play in the context of general jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals’ analysis in this case could not be sustained. The Ninth Circuit’s agency determination rested primarily on its observation that MBUSA’s services were “important” to Daimler, as gauged by Daimler’s hypothetical readiness to perform those services itself if MBUSA did not exist. But if  mere “importance” in this sense were sufficient to justify jurisdictional attribution, observed the Court, foreign corporations would be amenable to suit on any or all claims wherever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate, an outcome that would sweep beyond even the sprawling view of general jurisdiction the Court has rejected in cases like Goodyear.  

Even assuming that MBUSA was at home in California and that MBUSA’s contacts were imputable to Daimler, there would still be no basis to subject Daimler to general jurisdiction in California, said the Court. The paradigm all-purpose forums for general jurisdiction are a corporation’s place of incorporation and principal place of business.  Plaintiffs’ reasoning, however, would reach well beyond these exemplar bases to approve the exercise of general jurisdiction in every State in which a corporation engages in a substantial, continuous, and systematic course of business. The Court felt that the words “continuous and systematic,” were misread by plaintiffs and the Court of Appeals; they were used in International Shoe to describe situations in which the exercise of specific jurisdiction would be appropriate. See 326 U. S., at 317. With respect to all-purpose jurisdiction, International Shoe spoke instead of  instances in which the continuous corporate operations within a state were so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities.  Id., at 318. Accordingly, the proper inquiry, the Court explained, was whether a foreign corporation’s affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home in the forum State.

Neither Daimler nor MBUSA was incorporated in California, nor did either entity have its principal place of business there. If Daimler’s California activities sufficed to allow adjudication of this Argentina-rooted case in California, the same global reach would presumably be available in every other State in which MBUSA’s sales were sizable. No decision of the Supreme Court ever sanctioned a view of general jurisdiction so grasping. The Ninth Circuit, therefore, had no warrant to conclude that Daimler, even with MBUSA’s contacts attributed to it, was at home in California, and hence subject to suit there on claims by foreign plaintiffs having nothing to do with anything that occurred or had its principal impact in California.

The Court referred to the "transnational context" of the dispute, essentially making the point that U.S. courts are not suppose to be widely open to cases being brought against foreign companies when the underlying facts of the case have essentially nothing to do with the U.S.  The Supreme Court now has confirmed that general jurisdiction is typically limited to a jurisdiction companies can expect to be sued in, essentially where they are at home.

 

Foreign Manufacturer Liability Act Unlikely to Pass Soon

We have posted before about efforts to pass legislation that would impact the ability of U.S. consumers to sue foreign manufacturers.

As the end of the year approaches, it appears that the latest version, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act (FMLAA) of 2011, will not be approved. Senate Bill 1946 and House of Representatives Bill 3646 are among the latest attempts to impact suits against foreign product makers.  Both would require foreign manufacturers importing products into the U.S. to establish a registered agent to accept service of process. And the registration of the agent would constitute consent to the personal jurisdiction in the U.S.  

Earlier versions of the legislation gained support in the wake of issues relating to products from China and, especially, the Chinese drywall litigation. Supporters of the legislation included some domestic industries, such as textiles. They also garnered opposition from foreign governments, some U.S. manufacturer groups, and non-U.S. manufacturers in the European Union and the Confederation of Indian Industry, and others. Even supporters noted that the bills did not directly address another related issue, the enforcement of U.S. judgments overseas. 

 

State Supreme Court Adopts Consumer Expectation Test for Alleged Food Defects

Our readers know that for nearly 50 years, an ongoing issue in product liability law has been the definition of "defect" within the strict liability context. A subtext to this ongoing discussion has been the appropriate test to apply to food products.  Earlier this month,  the “reasonable consumer expectation” test was adopted for food claims by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in a strict liability claim involving a boneless turkey product. See Pinkham v. Cargill Inc., No. 2012 ME 85 (Me., 7/03/12).

Plaintiff allegedly consumed a hot turkey sandwich during his break.  Defendant  allegedly manufactured the boneless turkey product in the sandwich.  In the middle of or immediately after eating the sandwich, Pinkham allegedly experienced severe and sudden pain in his upper abdominal area and thought that he might be suffering from a heart attack. His doctors later determined that in their opinion he most likely had an “esophageal tear or perforation.” Plaintiff sued, alleging that this was a result of bone in the boneless turkey.

Although 50 percent of all turkey consumed in 1970 was during the holidays, today that number is around 31 percent as more people enjoy turkey year-round. In 2010, U.S. consumption of turkey was 16.4 pounds per person.  And turkey is now a $16 billion annual industry, according to the National Turkey Federation.  Readers will recall that our own Ben Franklin proposed the turkey as the national bird, at least in a letter he wrote to his daughter Sarah on January 26, 1784.

Back to the litigation. Defendant moved for summary judgment. After considering the motion, the trial court granted the motion in favor of Cargill, noting that Maine had not yet established which test to use when evaluating a strict liability claim for an allegedly defective food product pursuant to Maine’s strict liability statute, 14 M.R.S. § 221. The court recognized that, prior to the enactment of the state's strict liability statute, courts used a test similar to the “foreign-natural” doctrine when addressing an injury caused by a food product in an implied warranty of merchantability case. E.g., Kobeckis v. Budzko, 225 A.2d 418, 423 (Me. 1967). Readers will recall that the “foreign-natural” doctrine provides that in general a food producer is not liable for anything found in the food product that naturally exists in the ingredients. E.g., Newton v. Standard Candy Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21886, at *6 (D. Neb. Mar. 19, 2008).  The major alternative has been the “reasonable expectation” test: which provides that regardless of whether a substance in a food product is natural to an ingredient thereof, liability will lie for injuries caused by the substance where the consumer of the
product would not reasonably have expected to find the substance in the product. E.g., Jackson v. Nestle-Beich, Inc., 589 N.E.2d 547, 548 (Ill. 1992).

The trial court proposed to evaluate the summary judgment motion under both the traditional
“foreign-natural” doctrine and the more recent  “reasonable expectation” test. The lower court concluded that, because bone is naturally found in turkey, and because the average consumer would reasonably expect to find bone fragments up to two millimeters in size in processed “boneless” turkey product (which the doctor had), the contents of the food bolus discovered in plaintiff's esophagus did not demonstrate that the product was defective, as a matter of law.

The supreme court noted that the state's strict liability approach was rooted in the Second Restatement.  It observed that the Restatement comments define “[d]efective condition” in part as a product that is “in a condition not contemplated by the ultimate consumer.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A cmt. g. The comments also define “[u]nreasonably dangerous”: “The article sold must be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary
consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.” Id. cmt. i.  Relying on these comments, the court moved to the reasonable expectations test.

Applying that standard, the supreme court ruled that plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence that an alleged defect in the boneless turkey product he consumed might have caused his surgery-requiring injury. There was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the turkey product caused the injury. One doctor testified that he believed that the injury was a “perforation secondary to a foreign body.”  There was direct evidence of the presence of the smaller pieces of bone or cartilage.  While there was no direct evidence of a larger piece of bone, the court thought a jury could conclude that a larger piece of bone could have been present in the turkey product Pinkham consumed, but may have passed, undetected, from Pinkham’s throat.

Whether a consumer would reasonably expect to find a particular item in a food product is normally a question of fact that is left to a jury.  The court concluded that the trial court could not find as a matter of law that a food bolus containing one-to-two-millimeter bone fragments is not defective.  The question of whether a consumer would reasonably expect to find a turkey bone or a bone
fragment large and/or sharp enough to cause an esophageal perforation in a “boneless” turkey product "s one best left to the fact-finder" said the court.

 

State Appeals Court Finds Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Part Maker

An Illinois appeals court recently held that Illinois courts may exercise jurisdiction over a French manufacturer of helicopter parts. Russell v. SNFA, No. 1-09-3012 (Ill. App. Ct.,  3/31/11).  The court reversed the trial court's decision to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Readers know that the issues of personal jurisdiction over foreign product manufacturers is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court as we have posted before. This case underscores the importance of Supreme Court guidance in this area.

Plaintiff’s brother died during a helicopter crash in Illinois. He was the pilot and sole occupant, and was working for Air Angels, a medical air service that did business primarily in Illinois and, in particular, Cook County.  Defendant SNFA, a French company, made a part for that helicopter, which plaintiff claims was defective and the cause of the crash. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that the crash was caused by  the failure of one of the helicopter’s tail-rotor drive-shaft bearings, which defendant manufactured. Plaintiff alleged that, as a result of this failure, the drive shaft fractured, leaving the tail rotor inoperable; and the helicopter spun out of control.

Defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that Illinois had no jurisdiction over it.  Illinois has a jurisdictional statute, like many states, with a catchall provision which permits Illinois courts to exercise jurisdiction on any other basis now or hereafter permitted by the Illinois Constitution
and the Constitution of the United States. This permits an Illinois court to exercise personal jurisdiction to the extent permitted by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

General jurisdiction exists when defendant’s general business contacts with the forum state are continuous and systematic. Specific jurisdiction exists when the cause of action arose out of defendant’s contacts with the forum state.  Here, the court of appeals found that the state court had specific jurisdiction over defendant.  One relevant factor is whether the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to the defendant's activities in the state or directed to the state. For a tort action, the state in which the injury occurs is often considered to be the state in which the tort occurred. In the case at bar, the injury occurred in Illinois, and thus Illinois was deemed the state in which this tort occurred.  Numerous prior cases had noted that tortfeasors must expect to be haled into Illinois courts for torts where the injury took place there.

The court of appeals was also persuaded by the fact that the defendant was the same, and indeed many of the facts alleged the same, as in Rockwell International Corp. v. Costruzioni Aeronautiche Giovanni Agusta, S.P.A., 553 F.Supp. 328 (E.D. Pa. 1982).  The federal court there had held that the forum state, which was the site of the crash, could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over defendant SNFA. In both cases defendant had allegedly custom-made bearings for an A-109 helicopter; a subsequent owner replaced the tail-rotor drive-shaft bearings, with ones also manufactured by defendant. In both cases plaintiff alleged that the bearings and the drive shaft
failed, causing the helicopter to crash.

The Illinois court also determined that a relevant sale occurred in the state, despite the fact that the defendant sold the parts outside the U.S. It found that the cause of action could be traced from the sale of the ball bearings by SNFA, through its chain of distribution, to the apparent malfunction that allegedly caused the helicopter to crash. As a result, the court concluded that the “sale, malfunction and injury all occurred within” the forum state.

Defendant argued against minimum contacts claiming that its sales of ball bearings to the helicopter-maker Agusta were confined to Europe and that a court should not blur the distinction between Agusta.  But the court stressed that because the ball bearings were custom-made, SNFA intended its products to be an inseparable part of the marketing plan of Agusta.  That is, the bearing was uniquely designed for incorporation into Agusta’s helicopter, and SNFA had to
distribute its product through Agusta’s distributions system.  Agusta provided defendant with precise specifications, and defendant manufactured the bearings according to those specifications. Defendant acknowledged that it knows that its custom-made tail-rotor bearings are
incorporated by Agusta into helicopters and also sold as individual replacement parts.

SNFA did not deny that it knew that Agusta helicopters were sold throughout the United States, and that Agusta had an American subsidiary for the purpose of American distribution. Given the distribution system, SNFA had ample reason to know, said the court, and expect, that its bearing, as a unique part of a larger product, would be marketed in any or all states, including the forum state. By virtue of having a component specifically designed for the Agusta helicopter, SNFA had a "stake in" and expected to derive definite benefit from sales of the Agusta A-109 (and replacement parts) in the United States.

In essence, Agusta was the marketer and distributor to the consumer of their joint and ultimate product. SNFA has chosen to leave to Agusta the marketing and distribution to the consumer. Agusta was thus called the conduit through which this SNFA product, custom-made for Agusta, reached the ultimate consumers.

Finally, because the court found that SNFA designed and manufactured a component that was incorporated into a product which was intended to be, and was in fact, sold in the United States, it also concluded that where that component allegedly fails and causes injury in the very market in which the product was expected to be sold, it is not unreasonable or unfair to require the defendant to be subject to suit in that forum.

In one respect, this case does not present the most aggressive application of specific jurisdiction, in that the facts suggest something beyond mere stream of commerce jurisdiction, something more than just plain having sold a product that found its way into the forum.  But of great concern for foreign manufacturers would be the analysis of the nationwide distribution scheme, and the notion that by selling a part to a customer that has a national distribution system, a manufacturer thereby exposes itself to tort suits everywhere in the U.S.

 


 

CPSC and CDC Release Report on Alleged Drywall Deaths

The Consumer Product Safety Commission released a report of an investigation it had requested be performed by the CDC's National Center for Environmental Health regarding deaths allegedly associated with exposure to imported drywall.  The report concludes that the drywall was not a contributing factor in the deaths of the people who had previously lived in or visited homes reported to contain problem drywall.

The investigation included reviews of the pertinent medical records,  interviews of witnesses, and available information from state public health authorities.   The CDC review confirms the results of previous reviews conducted by CPSC itself.  The cause of death in each case was clearly a primary, and often secondary, pre-existing chronic health condition.  Subjects typically had multiple long-term, severe, pre-existing conditions.  

We have posted about the drywall issues here and here


 

Third Circuit Affirms Forum Non Conveniens Dismissal

We have posted before about how foreign plaintiffs desire to take advantage of U.S. product liability law and remedies.  The Third Circuit last week affirmed the granting of a forum non conveniens motion against the claims of hundreds of Australian plaintiffs seeking to sue Alcoa Inc. in the U.S. over injuries allegedly caused by emissions at three refineries in Western Australia. See Cameron Auxer et al. v. Alcoa Inc., No. 10-2131(3d Cir. 1/20/11).

These five consolidated cases involved 244 plaintiffs who claim to have suffered personal injuries caused by their alleged exposure to emissions from three alumina refineries in Western Australia.  The plaintiffs filed suit in June, 2009, alleging that Alcoa was liable for exposing them to a variety of  toxic chemicals from the Wagerup, Kwinana and Pinjarra refineries, and allegedly intentionally concealing the dangers of the pollution.  Alcoa produces alumina or aluminum oxide at its Western Australia facilities. 

FYI, the state of Western Australia is Australia’s face on the Indian Ocean. Its capital, Perth, is closer to Singapore and Jakarta than it is to Canberra. The majority of people live in and around Perth. Western Australia is the largest Australian State. With an area of more than 2,500,000 sq km, a 12,500 km coastline, and spanning 2,400 km from north to south, it occupies a third of the continent.

Defendant moved to dismiss, and the lower court dismissed the five consolidated suits on forum non conveniens grounds. Plaintiffs appealed.

While plaintiffs acknowledged that their exposure, injuries, diagnoses, and medical treatment all occurred exclusively in Western Australia, and that none of the operative facts material to causation, injuries, diagnoses and treatments occurred in Pennsylvania, they insisted that the witnesses and documentary evidence necessary for the plaintiffs to prove liability are located at defendant’s corporate headquarters in Pittsburgh.  Thus, the cases should proceed in Pennsylvania.

The key issues to be considered in reaching a decision on the appropriate forum are: (1) what degree of deference is to be given the plaintiffs’ choice of forum, (2) whether there is an adequate alternative forum, (3) whether a balancing of the private factors weighs in favor of dismissal, and (4) whether a balancing of public factors weighs in favor of dismissal. See, e.g., Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 862 F.2d 38, 43 (3d Cir. 1988).

The court of appeals addressed the lower court's treatment of factors 2-4.  On the second, Alcoa was registered to do business and subject to service of process in Western Australia; the courts of Western Australia had jurisdiction over cases of this kind and recognize theories of liability for negligence, reckless conduct, and “damage caused by hazardous activities,” and, the applicable foreign court rules provide for discovery of documents, interrogatories, and the compelling of the attendance of witnesses and production of documents at trial by court-ordered subpoenas. For these reasons, numerous federal courts have found Australia to be an adequate alternative forum and dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens. Some have specifically held that the mere absence of pretrial depositions does not render an alternative forum inadequate.

On factor three, the court observed that Pennsylvania evidence from a party would be much more accessible to plaintiffs for trial in a Western Australian forum than Western Australian evidence from non-parties would be for Alcoa for trial in a Pennsylvania forum. Because of this distinction between access to party and non-party witnesses and documents and the primary importance of a party’s being able to present its case at trial, the District Court correctly had concluded that this factor weighed heavily in favor of dismissal.

On the final factor, the lower court was fully aware that plaintiffs alleged culpable conduct in Pennsylvania and expressly recognized at the outset of its public interest factor discussion that it must consider the locus of the alleged culpable conduct and the connection of that conduct to plaintiff’s chosen forum.  But, said the Third Circuit, even if the District Court had failed to take this interest of Pennsylvania into account, it would not alter the outcome of these appeals. The applicable precedent does not suggest that, where culpable conduct takes place in a mass tort case in both jurisdictions and injury in only one, the interests of the two are in any way “comparable.”  This issue is "not a close call."

Supreme Court Hears Argument in Personal Jurisdiction Cases

Continuing our Supreme Court theme.  We have posted before about two cases involving personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations in state courts, now pending in SCOTUS.  McIntyre Machinery Ltd. v. Nicastro, U.S., No. 09-1343 (certiorari petition granted 9/28/10); Goodyear Luxembourg Tires SA v. Brown, U.S., No. 10-76 (certiorari petition granted 9/28/10). The former involves the assertion by New Jersey courts of jurisdiction over a European manufacturer of a machine that allegedly injured a state resident; the latter involves the assertion by North Carolina courts of general jurisdiction over the European affiliates of the manufacturer of tires allegedly responsibly for a vehicle accident in Europe injuring state residents on vacation there.

NICASTRO ORAL ARGUMENT
Several members of the Supreme Court were active in questioning the advocates in the Nicastro oral argument.  The defendant kept its argument focused on the “purposeful availment” branch of the prior case law on personal jurisdiction, the rule that a foreign company needs to intentionally take advantage of doing business in a state, and arguing that it matters whether the manufacturer directed the distributor to go to a certain state or controlled the relationship with customers in that state.

Several of the justices asked hypothetical questions about a variety of fact patterns beyond those presented by the case.  As difficult as the individual case may be per se, the Court recognizes that whatever rules it lays down here will have a potentially dramatic impact on foreign and domestic corporations, including small business, and the economy. Accordingly, a number of  questions were asked to help explore how the rules might impact other factual scenarios as well. Justice Kagan asked defense counsel to explain the difference between targeting the “United States” with your product and targeting one or more individual states, and whether targeting the country meant that you were automatically targeting each state within the country. (Traditionally, of course, the case law had focused on contacts with the individual state in which the defendant was being sued.) Justice Scalia asked whether the same issue arises for a domestic corporation; that is, a U.S. manufacturer could thus be sued in every state if it simply targeted the country as a whole.

Justice Ginsburg expressed concern about the whether plaintiff would be left with no forum (other than England) if New Jersey was not available, which led to a lengthy debate about Ohio, the home of the U.S. distributor, and the importance of the distributor contract. Justice Scalia returned to the notion of targeting the country, as opposed to a state, and wondered if the federal courts could be given jurisdiction over such cases by Congress, to which Justice Kennedy wondered aloud whether it would be “odd” to have federal courts but no state courts having jurisdiction over a state law-based product claim. This even led to a brief mention of the pending foreign manufacturer legislation in Congress, which we have posted on.

Justice Sotomayor asked about the facts in the record that the English company traveled to trade shows in the U.S., “approved” the marketing efforts of the distributor, or “suggested” certain advertising, and whether that would be enough to make it reasonable to be hauled into court where the product then has been sold. (Justice Kagan later asked plaintiff’s counsel about this, seemingly trying to get at whether the manufacturer knew and expected that people from all 50 states might attend the trade shows).  Chief Justice Roberts asked plaintiff’s counsel about what a manufacturer has to do to not be targeting a specific state, getting plaintiff to concede that both intent and conduct on the part of the manufacturer is needed to purposefully avail oneself. Justice Breyer and Justice Scalia seemed to observe that “availment” doesn’t mean much at all if the conduct of the English manufacturer here was sufficient.
 

Justice Breyer expressed the policy concern about subjecting every small business, even in developing countries, to the products liability law of each of the 50 states simply because they agreed to sell to an independent company that was going to sell in the U.S. generally. Justice Kagan and Justice Ginsburg prompted plaintiff’s counsel to say that a U.S. company doing the same thing in Europe as the English company did in this case would be subject to suit in the foreign country (implying that it was fair for the U.S. courts to do to foreign companies what foreign courts allegedly do to U.S. companies abroad). Chief Justice Roberts asked a hypothetical designed to address the issue of a plaintiff who lives in state A and commutes into state B to use the product at work, and whether he can also sue in his home state A, stating that “the stream of commerce doesn’t wash over the United States evenly.”

C.J. Roberts and Justice Kagan then asked about component parts makers. Plaintiff answered that there should be a different test for a component part maker and acknowledged that mere knowledge that the part would go into a machine to be sold in the U.S. was insufficient for the exercise of jurisdiction.

Justice Alito brought up the difficult issue of Internet websites, and Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy all later chimed in on this topic. Plaintiff drew a distinction (as some lower courts have) between a passive website, and an active site at which a plaintiff may have conducted the transaction for the product from his home computer. Plaintiff argued that the actual conduct of the sale was purposeful availment sufficient to be hauled into court there.


BROWN ORAL ARGUMENT
The Court then heard argument in the Brown case. Here, the argument generated far fewer questions.  While Justice Ginsburg seemed to ask the defendant difficult question in the New Jersey case, here she found “troubling” the North Carolina court’s apparent and questionable blending of the concepts of general and specific jurisdiction. Indeed, the argument focused on general jurisdiction as opposed to specific jurisdiction.

Much of the early part of the argument also involved a discussion of the relationship between the foreign subsidiary defendants and the parent U.S. corporation, which here had consented to jurisdiction. There were numerous questions about the subsidiaries and parent as a joint enterprise, the parent as agent of the subsidiaries, and whether the actions of the parent could be attributed to the subsidiaries for purposes of establishing jurisdiction over the subsidiaries. Justice Sotomayor asked whether plaintiff’s argument really was nothing more than a reverse of the typical principal-agent theory.

The federal government appeared in the case as amicus curiae and argued on behalf of defendants, against the finding of jurisdiction. It argued that even if the contacts of the parent could be attributed to the subsidiaries, those contacts still did not rise to the level necessary for the finding of general jurisdiction; and that the consent to jurisdiction of the parent would not extend to every corporation in the corporate family. Justice Scalia, in particular, seemed to be expressing some doubt that the level of coordination between the defendants demonstrated a unitary enterprise. The last part of the argument concerned policy issues, such as whether the finding of jurisdiction would cause companies to move all operations out of the U.S. for fear that even the actions of a separate entity in the corporate family would keep them in the U.S. courts.

Both cases were submitted for consideration, with decisions expected late in the spring of 2011.

Update on Jurisdiction Cases Pending in Supreme Court

We alerted readers recently that the Supreme Court had granted review in two product liability cases that raise cutting edge personal jurisdiction issues that may not only impact foreign manufacturers but and may also alter due process/personal jurisdiction jurisprudence generally. See J. McIntyre Machinery Ltd. v. Nicastro, U.S., No. 09-1343 (certiorari petition granted 9/28/10); Goodyear Luxembourg Tires SA v. Brown, U.S., No. 10-76 (certiorari petition granted 9/28/10).

Personal jurisdiction, of course, addresses the reach of the court’s power over a party, and without such jurisdiction, any ruling by the court is not binding on the party. Plaintiff lawyers focus on personal jurisdiction as part of the equation where they can sue; defendants as part of where they can be sued properly. As a very general matter, a defendant can only be sued where it has sufficient minimum contacts with the state such that a suit there does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

The issue framed in Nicastro is: Whether, consistent with the Due Process Clause and pursuant to the stream-of-commerce theory, a state may exercise in personam jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer when the manufacturer targets the general, overall U.S. market for the sale of its product and that product is purchased by a forum state consumer. The corresponding issue in Brown is: Whether a foreign corporation is subject to general personal jurisdiction, on causes of action not arising out of or related to any contacts between it and the forum state, merely because other entities distribute in the forum state products placed in the stream of commerce by the defendant.

"Stream of commerce" personal jurisdiction, debated frequently in the lower courts, if recognized by the Supreme Court, might allow any state to assume jurisdiction over any product manufacturer whose product found its way into the state, no matter how many independent, separate distributors the product had passed through in separate legal transactions. The original stream of commerce idea had included the element of a manufacturer's expectation that its products will be purchased in the specific forum state. Many foreign and out-of-state manufacturers reasonably should know that their products are distributed through a system that might result in sales in any given state. Should that be enough? Readers may recall that the Supreme Court took a look at "stream of commerce" jurisdiction over 20 years ago, and split with no majority decision. But a plurality rejected the "stream of commerce" concept in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102 (1987).

The foreign companies appealing the two state court rulings in two product liability cases recently filed merits briefs. See J.  McIntyre Machinery Ltd. v. Nicastro, No. 09-1343 (U.S. brief submitted 11/12/10); Goodyear Luxembourg Tires SA v. Brown,  No. 10-76 (U.S. brief submitted 11/12/10). There's a link to the Goodyear brief from the ABA Supreme Court Preview, and the McIntyre brief. Also, amici curiae filed briefs, including PLAC, Dow Chemical Canada ULC, the former ATLA now know as American Association for Justice, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, and  the Organization for International Investment and Association of International Automobile Manufacturers Inc. 

In the NJ case, the defendant asks how a “new reality” of “a contemporary international economy” permits a state to exercise in personam jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer pursuant to the stream of commerce theory solely because the manufacturer targets the US market for the sale of its product and the product is purchased by a forum state consumer?  The petitioner argues that the analysis in Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion in Asahi is the better view; first, it embodies the requirement of active engagement, of personal agency, that the Supreme Court has made the centerpiece of its formulations of personal jurisdiction limits under the Constitution. Second, it avoids the subjectivity that inheres in the test of mere awareness advanced by
Justice Brennan on the other side of the Asahi split. A concrete formulation is especially valuable in giving out-of-state actors the fair notice that the Court  has  deemed essential in allowing persons to conform their behavior to avoid, if they choose, the possibility of being haled into the courts of a state.  A defendant must intentionally act and direct that action at, and sufficiently in, the very state that seeks to exercise power over that person. Only through purposeful availment a producer will have a fair opportunity to conform its conduct so as to avoid state power if the producer chooses. To predicate jurisdiction on anything less leads to a rule where every seller of chattels would in effect appoint the chattel his agent for service of process and his amenability to suit would travel with the chattel.

 
The Goodyear brief notes that, unlike specific jurisdiction—which inherently must adapt to the permutations raised by varying claims—general jurisdiction, which does not vary from claim to claim, is more susceptible to precise rules. Indeed, one of its primary functions is to provide a certain and predictable place where a person can be reached by those having claims against him. No Supreme Court decisions have held that a manufacturer’s mere participation in the stream of
commerce could create general jurisdiction wherever the manufacturer’s products were distributed. To the contrary, most courts have repeatedly indicated that injecting a product, even in substantial volume, into a forum’s stream of commerce, without more, does not support general jurisdiction. General jurisdiction based on the stream of commerce theory violates traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice because essentially universal jurisdiction would exist in every state’s courts over every significant seller of goods, foreign or domestic. Because general jurisdiction must be justified solely by reference to the relationship between the state and the defendant, that relationship must be so significant — sufficiently substantial and of such a nature — as to give the state a basis for global judicial authority over all of the defendant’s conduct, wherever it occurs.
 

The Supreme Court has set argument in the two cases for Jan. 11, 2011. They will be argued separately.

 

Democrats Release Discussion Draft of FDA Bill

Five Democratic Congressmen released a discussion draft of possible legislation that would alter the powers of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  The bill would increase FDA's authority and funding to regulate the importation of foreign-manufactured drugs, and also give the FDA the authority to mandate recalls for unsafe drugs.

Rep. John D. Dingell, Chairman Emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, and Rep. Bart Stupak, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, released a discussion draft proposal, which builds on H.R. 759, the Food and Drug Globalization Act, which was introduced by Dingell, Pallone and Stupak last year.

The discussion draft calls for "parity" between foreign and domestic drug facility inspections, would increase the number of pre-approval drug inspections, and would prohibit the importation of drugs into the United States lacking appropriate documentation of safety.  The legislation would also require manufacturers to take steps to ensure the safety of their supply chain.

The sponsors noted that the byproduct of Internet communications and a rapidly-evolving international marketplace is an increase in the purchase of medications from foreign sources. Cong. Pallone claimed that, “One of the downsides is quality control and one of the dangers is the threat to the health and safety of consumers. We need to find the best ways to vest the FDA with the ability and the authority to ensure the safety of medications consumed by Americans.”

Cong. Waxman said he would work with the FDA "and all stakeholders to move this legislation forward as soon as possible." But the current Congress is heading home for the November elections, and the measure's fate is unclear if Republicans take control of the House next year.

Update on Foreign Manufacturers Liability Act

We have posted before about legislative efforts to make it easier for U.S. consumers to sue foreign product manufacturers.

Last week the the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on H.R. 4678, the “Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act.”  The House bill  was introduced last February. The Senate's version, S. 1606, was introduced in August, 2009.

Witnesses included a representative of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Consumers Union,  American Association of Exporters and Importers, and a Professor from American University College of Law.

The Act would require foreign manufacturers and producers of several kinds of products to establish registered agents for service of process and to consent to jurisdiction here.  It appears to have bipartisan support, but raises a number of constitutional issues, and may not address the key issue of the enforceability of judgments handed down by U.S. courts.

Supporters of the bill note that the Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters – of which the United States and many of its major trading partners, including China, are parties – provides a means of serving process on foreign manufacturers in their home countries.  However, this method can be time consuming and costly, because all the legal documents must be translated into the foreign manufacturer’s native language and then provided to a governmental central authority, which in turn attempts to serve the documents on the manufacturer. It can take many months for the central authority to serve the documents on the manufacturer.   In addition, even if a plaintiff successfully serves process on a foreign manufacturer, argue the supporters, the manufacturer will likely challenge the exercise of personal jurisdiction over it by a U.S. court. Before a U.S. court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant it must consider: 1) the defendant’s purposeful minimum contacts with the state in which the court sits, and 2) fairness to the defendant of being subjected to jurisdiction in that state’s courts.  Foreign manufacturers have increasingly turned to litigating this issue to avoid being hauled into U.S. courts.

The Act would require foreign manufacturers and producers that import products into the United States to designate a registered agent who is authorized to accept service of process here in the United States. The agent would have to be registered in a state with a substantial connection to the importation, distribution, or sale of products of the foreign manufacturer or producer. CPSC, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency would each be required to determine, based on the value or quantity of goods manufactured or produced, which foreign manufacturers and producers under their respective authority would be required to designate a registered agent. Registering an agent consistent with the Act constitutes acceptance by the manufacturer of personal jurisdiction of the state and federal courts of the state in which the agent is located.

AAEI, on the other hand, is particularly concerned about the impact H.R. 4678 would have on U.S. exporters if this bill is enacted by Congress. If the United States enacts H.R. 4678 requiring foreign manufacturers to appoint a registered agent to receive service of process, they anticipate that our trading partners will enact similar measures. It will be difficult and expensive for American exporters to maintain registered agents in all the foreign markets to which it exports. Moreover, having a registered agent in foreign markets increase the likelihood that these companies will be
subject to litigation before foreign courts in countries with legal proceedings which are less
transparent than the United States, argued AAEI.

Companion Bill Introduced To Ease Suits Against Foreign Manufacturers

Previously we alerted readers to the introduction of The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2009 (S. 1606),  introduced in the Senate in August 2009 by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). The bill followed up on hearings last Spring during which witnesses testified about the perceived delays and difficulties with serving foreign manufacturers with process and establishing jurisdiction.

Last week, Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) and several co-sponsors introduced in the House their own version of the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2010 (H.R. 4678). The operative provisions of the House bill overlap those in the Senate bill, although the Senate bill also includes a section which discusses the alleged need for the legislation.

The proposed legislation would impact five categories of products: drugs, devices and cosmetics; biological products; chemical substances; pesticides; and consumer products. The bills only apply to manufactured products “in excess of a minimum value or quantity established by the head of the applicable agency" in regulations applying the legislation.

Both bills make consent to jurisdiction and service of process a condition of importing products into the United States. That is, the bills instruct several relevant product-regulating agencies to issue regulations requiring foreign manufacturers and producers to designate a registered agent. A person would not be able to import into the United States a covered product (or component part that will be used in the United States to manufacture a covered product) if such product or any part of such product (or component part) was manufactured or produced outside the United States by a manufacturer or producer who does not have a registered agent. 

Such a system which requiring an agent for service of process for every foreign manufacturer or producer who imports products into the U.S. would render the Hague Convention's  methods for service abroad unnecessary for such companies, and raises the risk that other countries may choose to create similar rules, subjecting U.S. companies to litigation in those other countries where their products may be sold.

Under the bills, a foreign manufacturer or producer of covered products that registers an agent as above thereby consents to the personal jurisdiction of the State or Federal courts of the State in which the registered agent is located for the purpose of any civil or regulatory proceeding.  Presumably, the expanded jurisdiction would also make it easier for U.S. companies to pursue indemnification claims against foreign manufacturers who were upstream suppliers.

Currently, foreseeing that one's product may enter a state is not, on its own, a sufficient basis for that state to assert jurisdiction. Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 112(1987); but cf. Nicastro v. McIntyre Machinery America Ltd., No. A-29-08 (N.J. 2/2/10).  It has been argued that Congress cannot create jurisdiction where the Constitution would forbid it. And it may be that a constitutional challenge would lie to some applications of the proposed bills. E.g., Texas Trading & Milling Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 647 F.2d 300 (2d Cir. 1981). Presumably, the sponsors are looking to bypass the due process concerns by providing for consent to jurisdiction.

It is unclear what the effect of the bills might be on countries around the world regarding their willingness to enforce judgments entered in the United States, as the issue of the lack of foreign manufacturer assets in the U.S. is not addressed by the proposed legislation.


 

 

State Supreme Court Issues Noteworthy Personal Jurisdiction Opinion

The New Jersey Supreme Court has recently ruled that a New Jersey court can exercise jurisdiction in a product liability action over a foreign manufacturer based on the manufacturer's relationship with a nationwide distributor and on its presence at national trade shows. Nicastro v. McIntyre Machinery America Ltd.,  No. A-29-08 (N.J. 2/2/10).

Personal jurisdiction addresses the reach of the court’s power over a party, and without such jurisdiction, any ruling by the court is not binding on the party. Plaintiff lawyers focus on personal jurisdiction as part of the equation where they can sue; defendants as part of where they can be sued properly. The rules governing personal jurisdiction are well described in numerous reference works. As a general matter, a defendant can only be sued where it has sufficient minimum contacts with the state such that a suit there does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

In 2001, plaintiff was injured while operating the McIntyre Model 640 Shear, a recycling machine used to cut metal. The Model 640 Shear was manufactured by J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd., a company incorporated in the United Kingdom, and then sold, through its exclusive United States distributor, McIntyre Machinery America, to the employer.  Plaintiff sued, alleging that the shear machine was defective in that it did not have a safety guard that allegedly would have prevented the accident. The trial court granted the foreign defendant's motion to dismiss the action, finding that the English manufacturer did not have sufficient minimum contacts with New Jersey to justify the state’s exercise of personal jurisdiction. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the exercise of jurisdiction by New Jersey “would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” and was justified “under the ‘stream-of-commerce plus’ rationale."  Under that test, the actions of a defendant must be “purposefully directed toward the forum State” for a court of that state to exercise personal jurisdiction. Acknowledging that the English company had no presence in, or minimum contacts with, New Jersey, the state Supreme Court said plaintiff's argument for jurisdiction “must sink or swim with the stream-of-commerce theory of jurisdiction.”
 

New Jersey has a long-arm rule that permits service of process on a non-resident defendant “consistent with due process of law.”  Therefore, its courts may exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant “to the uttermost limits permitted by the United States Constitution.” The Supreme Court seemed influenced by the view  that we live in a global marketplace. It also noted that a state has a strong interest in protecting its citizens from defective products as well as a paramount interest in ensuring a forum for its injured citizens who have suffered catastrophic
injuries due to allegedly defective products in the workplace. While its conception of jurisdiction must surely comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, the court noted it must also reflect modern truths – the radical transformation of the international economy.

Accordingly, the court held that a foreign manufacturer will be subject to this state’s jurisdiction if it knows or reasonably should know that through its distribution scheme its products are being sold in New Jersey. A manufacturer that knows or reasonably should know that its products are distributed through a nationwide distribution system that might lead to those products being sold in any of the fifty states must expect that it will be subject to the state’s jurisdiction if one of its defective products is sold to a New Jersey consumer, causing injury. The focus under this approach is not on the manufacturer’s control of the distribution scheme, but rather on the manufacturer’s knowledge of the distribution scheme through which it is receiving economic benefits in each state where its products are sold. A manufacturer cannot shield itself merely by employing an independent distributor – a middleman – knowing the predictable route the product will take to market. If a manufacturer does not want to subject itself to the jurisdiction of a New Jersey court while targeting the United States market, then, the court said, it must take some reasonable step to prevent the distribution of its products in that state.

The power of the state to subject a person or business to the jurisdiction of its courts has evolved with the changing nature of the American economy, said the court. As the nation is part of a global economy driven by startling advances in the transportation of products and people and instantaneous dissemination of information, the expanding reach of a state court’s jurisdiction, as permitted by due process, has reflected those historical developments.

The stream-of-commerce doctrine of jurisdiction is particularly suitable in product-liability actions, opined the court. It will not necessarily be a substitute for other jurisdictional doctrines -- such as minimum contacts -- that will apply in contract and other types of cases. Within the confines of due process, jurisdictional doctrines must reflect the economic and social realities of the day. The exercise of jurisdiction by New Jersey in this case was called "a reasoned response" to the globalization of commerce that permits foreign manufacturers to market their products through distribution systems that bring those products into the state. With the privilege of distributing products to consumers comes the responsibility of answering in a New Jersey court if one of those consumers is injured by a defective product, concluded the majority.

A lengthy dissent argued that the majority had ignored the fact that the original stream of commerce idea had included the element of a manufacturer's expectation that its products will be purchased in the forum state.  It also criticized an apparent shift in focus from the defendant to the plaintiff, including the severity of injuries.

The majority's test may come to have implications for manufacturers selling to other states as well, outside New Jersey. Many foreign and out-of-state manufacturers reasonably should know that their products are distributed through a nationwide system that might result in sales in any given state. It is quite possible the U.S. Supreme Court will want to clarify the reach of the so-called stream of commerce test, which was mentioned in Justice O’Connor’s plurality opinion in
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102 (1987).

Motion For Default Filed in China Drywall MDL

An Alabama construction company that is a party in the multidistrict litigation over allegedly tainted Chinese-made drywall has asked for a default judgment against a foreign manufacturer/seller of gypsum drywall. Mitchell Co. Inc., et al. v. Knauf Gips KG, et al., No. 09-cv-4115 (E.D. La.).

Mitchell filed a motion last week  in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana asking for a default judgment against China-based Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd.  The motion alleges that Taishan has not responded to the plaintiff's complaint nor entered an appearance.  Mitchell filed its original complaint back in March, in the Northern District of Florida, seeking to represent a class of plaintiffs who allege they incurred expenses stemming from defective drywall.  The complaint names several drywall makers and sellers.  The case was later transferred with related actions to the MDL in front of Judge Fallon. In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, No. 09-md-02047 (E.D. La.). 

Interestingly, the motion comes as the Congress debates a bill that would make it easier for foreign manufacturers to be sued when their products allegedly injure U.S. consumers, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2009.

MassTortDefense has posted about the alleged problems with Chinese imported drywall. In litigation over the issues, Lennar Corp., the U.S.' second largest home-builder (by volume), has sued more than two dozen manufacturers, suppliers and installers.  As noted here before, Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Mary Landrieu, D-La., have introduced legislation tied to Chinese drywall.  Also, the CPSC reports that it has now received a total of 810 reports related to the allegedly defective drywall, including complaints from two additional states, Pennsylvania and South Carolina. That means the Commission (criticized in some circles for its work on this issue)has received reports from homeowners in 23 states and the District of Columbia. The majority of the reports continue to be from Florida, Louisiana, and Virginia. About 6.2 million sheets of Chinese drywall were imported into the U.S. during 2006.

 

Bill Introduced To Ease Suits Against Foreign Manufacturers

We have posted at MassTortDefense about a number of significant product liability issues arising from products made outside the US and imported into this country.  Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.,  Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Richard Durbin, D-Ill., have introduced a bill that would make it easier for foreign manufacturers to be sued when their products allegedly injure U.S. consumers.

The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2009 was introduced in the U.S. Senate last week.  The bill, S. 1606,  follows up on hearings last Spring during which witnesses testified about the perceived delays and difficulties with serving foreign manufacturers with process and establishing jurisdiction.
 

In comments on the Senate floor, sponsors cited recent examples in which Americans had been injured by allegedly defective foreign products. They claimed that the current rules put American manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage because they supposedly allow foreign companies to offer cheaper products that do not comply with U.S. safety requirements. The bill would apply to drugs, medical devices, and cosmetics, biological products, consumer products, as such term is used in the Consumer Product Safety Act, chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act, and pesticides.

The bill attacks the issues of service of process and jurisdiction. Service abroad involves the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, to which the U.S. is a signatory. A complaint must be translated into the foreign language, transmitted to the central authority in the foreign country, and then delivered according to the rules of service in the home country of the defendant. This can be a lengthy and expensive process. The proposed legislation would require foreign manufacturers and producers of covered products distributed in commerce (or component parts that will be used in the United States to manufacture such products) to establish a registered agent in the United States who is authorized to accept service of process.  It similarly states that a person may not import into the United States a covered product (or component part that will be used in the United States to manufacture a covered product) if such product (or component part) or any part of such product (or component part) was manufactured or produced outside the United States by a manufacturer or producer who does not have a registered agent.

 The second major hurdle is the inability to establish personal jurisdiction over foreign
manufacturers. Under the new bill, a foreign manufacturer or producer of covered products that registers an agent as above thereby consents to the personal jurisdiction of the State or Federal courts of the State in which the registered agent is located for the purpose of any civil or regulatory proceeding.

Not surprisingly the bill is supported by the "American Association for Justice"  plaintiffs lawyers.

 

 

Legislation Might Increase Litigation Against Foreign Product Manufacturers

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) announced last week his plan to introduce legislation that would increase the ability of U.S. plaintiffs to sue foreign manufacturers of allegedly defective products. This development should be monitored by all foreign manufacturers selling into the United States.

Whitehouse announced the proposed legislation at a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. The hearing was entitled, “Leveling the Playing Field and Protecting Americans: Holding Foreign Manufacturers Accountable.” A variety of witnesses testified about the impact of the issue on both American consumers and American business, and whether there was a need for Congress to put foreign companies on a more equal footing with domestic companies in terms of litigation risks, and to reduce a possible “competitive disadvantage” suffered by U.S. manufacturers.

There are three main procedural hurdles faced by plaintiffs seeking to sue foreign parties: (1) obtaining personal jurisdiction; (2) serving process; and (3) enforcing U.S. judgments abroad. That is, a party suing must first be able to find a court that has Constitutional power/authority over the defendant, personal jurisdiction. Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California, Solano County, 480 U.S. 102 (1987). Then after filing, the party must inform the defendant of the lawsuit and its contents.  And at the end of the lawsuit, the party must be able to collect any money awarded, especially when the defendant's assets are outside of the U.S.  If the defendant is judgment proof, the suit is a waste of time for plaintiffs.

One speaker, Prof. Teitz of the Roger Williams University School of Law, described that as a result of different approaches in other legal systems, U.S. consumers face difficulties recovering in U.S. courts and enforcing U.S. judgments abroad, in fact more difficulty than many foreign consumers face in the reverse situation. In addition, there is an obvious competitive impact on U.S.  manufacturers who are sued more easily and cheaply here for obvious reasons and against whom judgments can be enforced throughout the country under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Service of process may be governed by international conventions and treaties, or may involve the use of diplomatic channels, the Professor said. Legislation to require domestic agents for service of process would reduce the cost and difficulty of service.

A plaintiff attorney testified that the transition of the U.S. economy away from manufacturing has resulted in a dramatic increase in foreign-made goods entering the country. The volume of imports has tripled over the last decade and is expected to triple again by 2015. He recommended legislation allowing jurisdiction based on aggregate national contacts and import licenses that require liability insurance as well as agents for service of process and consent to jurisdiction.

Another attorney noted a competitive disadvantage for U.S. companies that are subject to what he called the “tort tax.” But he cautioned that legislation should not burden U.S. business by expanding federal jurisdiction and changing choice-of-law rules. He also warned of possible problems with the constitutionality of the discussed legislation. For example, legislation might authorize jurisdiction over foreign entities by virtue of their national contacts in both federal and state courts. That may run afoul of the rule that state courts may only assert personal jurisdiction over defendants who purposefully establish minimum contacts with that forum state. See, e.g., International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).