Breaking news and expert analysis on legal and compliance issues
From Products Liability Law Daily, September 17, 2013
By Pamela C. Maloney, J.D.
An Irish corporation that designed and manufactured forklifts, but never maintained a physical presence in Mississippi, has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a determination by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (sub nom.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion. In its decision, the Fifth Circuit declared that its application of the stream-of-commerce approach, as applied by the district court, did not “run afoul” of the U.S. Supreme Court’s narrow holding in
Petition for certiorari. In its petition, the Irish corporation argued that by ignoring the Supreme Court’s holding in McIntrye, the Fifth Circuit’s decision demonstrated that there was a conflict over the proper test for personal jurisdiction that will continue to cause confusion and conflicting results among the federal circuits. The corporation pointed to a similar case filed against it in Kentucky pre-McIntyre, which had been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, and noted that in another case filed against it in Missouri since McIntyre, the company was subjected to personal jurisdiction in a state court case. The corporation argued that as a company which sells and ships its products to a single customer located in a single state, these decisions left it with no clear understanding of where it may be required to appear in response to a lawsuit. Until the High Court resolved the disagreement over the proper test for personal jurisdiction, the corporation claimed that it and other foreign manufacturers would continue to be subjected to conflicting results depending solely on the jurisdiction in which they were sued.
Question presented. The Irish company asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the U.S. Constitution allows the Fifth Circuit to submit the company to personal jurisdiction under that Circuit’s “mere foreseeability” test when the High Court had concluded in McIntyre, and a majority of the Circuit Courts have held since McIntyre, that “something more” is required for personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant.
The case number is:
Attorneys: Allen C. Schlinsog, Jr. and James P. Denis III (Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren, s.c.) for Moffett Engineering, Ltd.
Companies: Moffett Engineering, Ltd.
MainStory: TopStory JurisdictionNews IndustrialCommercialEquipNews
Introducing Wolters Kluwer Products Liability Law Daily a daily reporting service created by attorneys, for attorneys providing same-day coverage of breaking news, court decisions, legislation, and regulatory activity.