PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Issues

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

Written by

Edited by

Issues

In this case, the Supreme Court will determine whether courts have specific jurisdiction over defendants only when the case arises out of conduct that is causally connected to a defendant’s in-state conduct. The case comes before the Supreme Court after Bristol-Myers Squibb was sued in California for manufacturing a defective anticoagulant, despite having manufactured the anticoagulant in New Jersey and having only a transient connection with California. Bristol-Myers Squibb argues that the California court lacks power to adjudicate this case, because the company’s conduct in California is not causally connected to the plaintiffs’ injuries. California Superior Court, on the other hand, argues that specific jurisdiction does not require proof of causation. Much is at stake in this action: some assert that California’s victory would result in gross injustice to defendants; others claim that BMS’s victory would cause judicial resources to be squandered with duplicative litigation.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

During the Argentine “Dirty War” of the 1970s, between 10,000 to 30,000 left-wing sympathizers disappeared. In 2004, Bauman and twenty-two Argentine citizens or residents sued DaimlerChrysler AG (“DCAG”) for violations under the Alien Tort Claims Act, claiming that DCAG’s subsidiary in Argentina ordered state security forces to rid its plant of left-wing sympathizers. DaimlerChrysler is a German company that does not manufacture or sell products in the US, but owns a subsidiary, Mercedes Benz, that sells DCAG products in the US. Bauman sued in the Northern District of California, claiming that the court had general personal jurisdiction over DCAG via Mercedes Benz USA’s contacts with California. The Ninth Circuit held that DCAG is subject to general personal jurisdiction in California because it has an indirect subsidiary that distributes DCAG-manufactured vehicles in California. Thus, the court concluded that DCAG could be sued in California for the company’s alleged human rights violations committed by an Argentine subsidiary against Argentine residents. DCAG claims that neither an alter ego theory nor agency theory establish the necessary minimum contacts to extend personal jurisdiction over DCAG. Bauman argues that the Ninth Circuit properly found general personal jurisdiction because agency theory establishes DCAG’s necessary minimum contacts with California. The Supreme Court’s decision will determine the boundaries of general personal jurisdiction—specifically, whether an indirect corporate subsidiary’s contacts with a forum state can be imputed to the parent company to confer personal jurisdiction over the parent company.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

The Supreme Court will consider whether the personal jurisdiction subsection of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Fuld argues that early laws like the Judiciary Act of 1789 show that Congress can give courts the ability to adjudicate extraterritorial conduct. The Palestine Liberation Organization (“PLO”) and the Palestinian Authority (“PA”) argue the Fifth Amendment only allows courts to exercise jurisdiction over foreigners with a presence in the U.S. and that early statutes required physical control over people or property within the U.S. as a prerequisite to jurisdiction. Fuld asserts that the PSJVTA’s clear notice makes the PLO’s conduct a manifestation of consent to jurisdiction. The PLO contends that consent requires a voluntary act, and that the PSJVTA lacks U.S. nexus and fair notice, violating due process. The outcome of this case will likely determine whether Fuld can recover, as well as frame the future of personal jurisdiction for terrorism in foreign countries. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

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

Additional Resources

Issues

The forum non conveniens motion asks a court to dismiss a pending case so that the dispute may be pursued in a different, more appropriate forum. This option is increasingly popular in cases where the defendant wishes to move the case from the courts of one nation to another. In this case, a shipment from the United States to China went awry, and the parties pursued litigation in both Chinese and American courts. In one of the suits, a federal district court granted a forum non conveniensmotion, although it had not conclusively established that it had jursidiction over the parties. If the Supreme Court reasons that a forum non conveniens motion may be resolved before jurisdiction is determined, then litigants will benefit from expedient court decisions in appropriate forums. However, if the Court finds that a lower court may not dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens before conclusively establishing jurisdiction, then litigants will be faced with the potential of lengthy proceedings in inappropriate forums. The Court's decision in this case will thus affect parties involved in duplicative litigation.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Issues

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

Written by

Edited by