Forum
U.S. Supreme Court
Case Status
Decided
Docket Number
Term
2010 Term
Oral Argument Date
January 11, 2011
Lower Court Opinion
New Jersey Supreme Court
Questions Presented
Does a “new reality” of “a contemporary international economy” permit a state to exercise, consonant with due process under the United States Constitution, in personam jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer pursuant to the stream-of-commerce theory solely because the manufacturer targets the United States market for the sale of its product and the product is purchased by a forum state consumer?
Case Updates
Supreme Court reverses “stream-of-commerce” theory of personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants decision
June 27, 2011
In a fractured decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a New Jersey Supreme Court decision, which had held that the state could exercise specific jurisdiction over a foreign company in a products liability suit. In this case, the plaintiff had seriously injured his hand in New Jersey while operating a machine manufactured in England by the defendant, a corporation that was incorporated and had its operations in England. In its brief, NCLC argued that under the Supreme Court’s specific jurisdiction doctrine, the Due Process Clause requires the plaintiff to prove that the manufacturer engaged in substantial activity in the state. The controlling opinion agreed that the lower court’s judgment must be reversed because there was no purposeful availment and the defendant could not have anticipated suit. The plurality opinion agreed with NCLC and looked only to purposeful availment- that because the foreign company never engaged in any activities in New Jersey that revealed an intent to invoke or benefit from the protection of New Jersey’s laws, the state did not have jurisdiction.
U.S. Chamber files amicus brief
November 19, 2010
NCLC urged the Supreme Court to reverse a New Jersey Supreme Court decision that a foreign company can be prosecuted in state court for an allegedly defective product sold in New Jersey. In this case, a metal worker injured himself with a machine made by a British company and sold in the U.S. In its brief, NCLC argued that under the Supreme Court’s specific jurisdiction policy, the Due Process Clause requires the plaintiff to prove that the manufacturer engaged in substantial activity in the state. NCLC warned that the decision below, if left to stand, will hurt small businesses and require parties to engage in expensive and time-consuming jurisdictional discovery.