minimum contacts

BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell

Issues

Can a railroad corporation be sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act by an employee for compensation for injuries in a state that is neither the home state of the corporation nor where the injuries occurred?

Court below

Petitioner Kelli Tyrrell (“Tyrrell”) sued BNSF Railway Company (“BNSF”) in Montana state court, alleging violations of the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (“FELA”) for the injuries Brent Tyrrell sustained while working at BNSF. Robert Nelson also sued BNSF in Montana for FELA violations for the knee injuries he experienced while under BNSF’s employ. The Supreme Court consolidated Tyrrell’s and Nelson’s FELA claims. BNSF argues that Montana courts do not have personal jurisdiction over these claims because BNSF is not incorporated in Montana, Montana is not BNSF’s principal place of business, the petitioners are not Montana residents, and the claims did not arise in Montana. Tyrrell and Nelson counter that state courts have the authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state corporations in federal claims, like FELA, when the state law permits such a claim. This case allows the Supreme Court to define the boundaries of state courts’ personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants in federal claims. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether, notwithstanding this Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), a state court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant railroad that is not at home in the state, in a case that does not arise in the state, on the ground that the plaintiff pleads a cause of action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and the railroad is not incorporated overseas. 

In May 2014, Kelli Tyrrell (“Tyrrell”), the special administrator for the estate of Brent Tyrrell (“Brent”), sued BNSF Railway Company alleging violations of the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (“FELA”) for injuries Brent experienced while working for BNSF that ultimately led to his death. See Tyrrell v. BNSF Ry.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

J. McIntyre Machinery, LTD v. Nicastro

Issues

Where a foreign manufacturer has an exclusive distribution agreement with an independent company in the United States, does national distribution provide sufficient contacts to subject that manufacturer to personal jurisdiction in a products liability suit in a state the defendant does not explicitly target as a market for its products?

Robert Nicastro injured his hand in a shearing machine manufactured by J. McIntyre Machinery Ltd. (“McIntyre”), a British company with no physical American presence. See Nicastro v. McIntyre Machinery America, 399 N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 539, 545. McIntyre Machinery America (“MMA”), McIntyre’s exclusive U.S.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

· Forbes.com, James Beck: On the Docket—Inside the Courtroom (Oct. 22, 2010)

· Industry Week, Keith Wilson: “Equalizing” the Playing Field with Foreign Manufacturers (Feb. 10, 2010)

· Robb & Robb: Suing Foreign Product Manufacturers

·The Supreme Court will hear this case in tandem with Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown, which concerns state general personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer whose products occasionally enter the state through its global parent company.

Submit for publication
0

North Carolina Department of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust

Issues

Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit states to tax the undistributed income of non-resident trusts based solely on the trust beneficiaries’ in-state residency?

In this case, the Supreme Court will determine whether a state in which a trust’s beneficiaries reside has the power to tax that trust’s income. Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a state has the authority to tax an individual or entity—such as a trust—if that entity has “minimum contacts” with the state. North Carolina Department of Revenue argues that a beneficiary’s residence in a state provides sufficient minimum contacts between a trust and a state to authorize the state to tax the trust’s income. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust, on the other hand, contends that a state does not have the authority to tax a trust’s income based solely on the fact that beneficiaries reside in that state. The outcome of this case will determine the limits on state power to tax trusts and will have implications for all those involved in trust creation, management, and benefits.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the due process clause prohibits states from taxing trusts based on trust beneficiaries’ in-state residency.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

Walden v. Fiore

Issues

  1. Can a court exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant whose only contact with the forum state is his knowledge that the plaintiffs had contacts with the state?
  2. Is the district where a plaintiff suffered injury a proper venue if all of the alleged events giving rise to the claim were committed by the defendant in a different district?

In August 2006, Respondents Gina Fiore and Keith Gipson returned from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to their home in Las Vegas after passing through Atlanta, Georgia. Fiore and Gipson are professional gamblers and had traveled to San Juan to legally gamble. Upon arriving in Atlanta, Fiore and Gipson were detained by Petitioner, DEA agent Anthony Walden, who confiscated Fiore’s and Gipson’s winnings on suspicion that the money was tied to illegal drug activity. Fiore and Gipson sued Walden in Nevada for the return of the money. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction over Walden. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the requirements of personal jurisdiction and proper venue had been satisfied. Walden argues that Nevada lacks personal jurisdiction over him because he has no contacts with the state—besides his knowledge that Fiore and Gipson reside there—and because it would be unfair to subject a defendant to a forum based on a plaintiff’s residence that is different from the forum where the actions giving rise to the claim occurred. Fiore and Gipson respond that Walden intentionally directed his actions toward residents of Nevada, thereby harming Nevada residents, making Nevada a proper state to exercise personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court will decide whether a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant whose only contact with the forum state is his knowledge that the plaintiffs reside there. The outcome will address a basic question about how far courts can extend their jurisdiction, and thereby impact a threshold issue in any lawsuit: where plaintiffs can sue.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

  1. Whether due process permits a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant whose sole “contact” with the forum State is his knowledge that the plaintiff has connections to that State. 
  2. Whether the judicial district where the plaintiff suffered injury is a district “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” for purposes of establishing venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) even if the defendant's alleged acts and omissions all occurred in another district. 

top

Facts

Respondents Gina Fiore and Keith Gipson arrived at the San Juan airport with $97,000 in cash gambling winnings in their carry-on bags. See Fiore v. Walden, 657 F.3d 838, 842 (9th Cir. 2012). Fiore and Gipson are professional gamblers and were returning from San Juan to their home in Las Vegas.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

top

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to minimum contacts