general jurisdiction

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown

Issues

Whether a court can acquire general personal jurisdiction to hear any claim against a foreign company when the company’s only connection with the forum state is the distribution of products by other entities of the parent corporation.

 
Appealed from: North Carolina Court of Appeals (Aug. 18, 2009)​Two North Carolina teenagers were killed in France when a tire, manufactured by Goodyear Luxembourg, malfunctioned and caused an accident. Their estates sued the foreign manufacturers of the defective tire for negligence in a North Carolina state court, and the state court found that it had general jurisdiction over the defendants and could hear the case. Goodyear Luxembourg argues that North Carolina does not have general jurisdiction because the company has no presence in or direct business with North Carolina. The teenagers' estates argue that the court properly found jurisdiction because Goodyear Luxembourg is part of the larger and highly integrated Goodyear enterprise, which does have significant contact with North Carolina. The Supreme Court’s  decision in this case  will determine the ease with which plaintiffs may sue foreign manufacturers in state court, and could potentially affect commercial relations between the United States and other nations.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

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.

On April 18, 2004, Matthew Helms and Julian Brown died as a result of a bus accident near Paris, France. See Brown v. Meter, 681 S.E.2d 382, 384 (N.C. Ct. App.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

· Washington Legal Foundation: Court Urged to Reject Expansion of Jurisdiction over Foreign Companies (Goodyear Luxembourg Tires, S.A. v. Brown) (Nov. 19, 2010)
 
· Nixon Peabody, Raymond L. Mariani: U.S. Supreme Court to Revisit Personal Jurisdiction over Foreign Manufacturers (Nov. 16, 2010).
 
The Supreme Court will hear this case in tandem with J. McIntyre Machinery, LTD v. Nicastro, which concerns state personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer which generally targets the U.S. market but has no physical presence in the United States and uses an independent company as its exclusive distributor within the United States.
Submit for publication
0

Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

Issues

Does requiring a corporation to consent to personal jurisdiction as a condition to do business in a state violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether the Due Process Clause permits consent-by-registration as a basis for personal jurisdiction. Pennsylvania’s consent-by-registration statute requires that foreign corporations registered in the state consent to general personal jurisdiction there. Robert Mallory contends that consent-by-registration statutes produce valid consent to personal jurisdiction because consent-by-registration has been traditionally accepted as a basis of personal jurisdiction, and recent cases have not overruled this notion. Norfolk Southern Railway Company counters that consent-by-registration statutes fail to provide valid consent because registration jurisdiction is neither widely accepted nor consistent with modern personal jurisdiction jurisprudence. The outcome of this case has heavy implications for businesses and state sovereignty.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits a state from requiring a corporation to consent to personal jurisdiction to do business in the state.

Robert Mallory (“Mallory”) is a Virginia resident who was an employee of Norfolk Southern Railway Company (“Norfolk”) from 1988 to 2005. Mallory v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. at 551. Mallory sued Norfolk in a Pennsylvania state court for claims arising under the Federal Employers Liability Act.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Kevin M. Clermont for his guidance and insights into this case.

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to general jurisdiction