Personal jurisdiction is perhaps one of the most complicated areas in litigation. Each successive case since International Shoe Co. v. Washington, seems to create more new questions.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Purposeful Availment Test After Ford
Law360 (May 4, 2021, 5:12 PM EDT) The U.S. Supreme Court s most recent personal jurisdiction decision has many product manufacturers worried. In Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, the court issued an 8-0 decision holding that some companies, like Ford, may be subject to specific jurisdiction in any U.S. forum where a product-related injury occurs regardless of whether the defendant s contacts with the forum were a but for cause of the injury.
Though the court attempted to limit its analysis to the arise out of or relate to prong of the specific jurisdiction test, the decision s reach extends uncomfortably beyond that provision. Of particular.
We recently covered the United States Supreme Court’s troubling decision in
Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021), which has broadened the reach of specific personal jurisdiction for many product manufacturers. In an 8–0 decision, the Court held that some companies (like Ford) may be subject to specific jurisdiction in
any U.S. forum where a product-related injury occurs, regardless of whether the defendant’s contacts with the forum were a “but for” cause of the injury. Though the Court attempted to limit its analysis to the “arise out of or relate to” prong of the specific jurisdiction test, the decision’s reach extends uncomfortably beyond that provision. Of particular concern is its impact on another key element of the specific jurisdiction analysis: purposeful availment.
[9]
Turning back to the case at hand, how did Ford’s general activities in the forum states sufficiently “relate to” the plaintiffs’ claims at issue? In the majority’s view, the answer was quite simple: “Ford had systematically served a market in Montana and Minnesota for the very vehicles that the plaintiffs alleged malfunctioned and injured them in those states.”
[10] Thus, just like Volkswagen and Daimler in past landmark cases, Ford was subject to personal jurisdiction for claims brought against them by forum residents based on accidents occurring within the forum.
Fairness and “Reciprocal Obligations”
Throughout the Court’s majority opinion, Justice Kagan directly and indirectly highlighted the extent of Ford’s activities in the forum states to demonstrate that permitting jurisdiction “treats Ford fairly.”
The Supreme Court’s latest foray into personal jurisdiction –
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court – seems to raise more questions than answers regarding the contours of specific jurisdiction. A curious result, given the eight-member panel
1 unanimously agreed that Ford
was subject to specific jurisdiction in the forums – Montana and Minnesota – where the underlying suits were filed.
Writing for the five-member majority, Justice Kagan reached this conclusion by recognizing that specific jurisdiction may exist where a defendant’s extensive activity is “related to” the plaintiff’s claims, even if not the but-for cause. The concurring opinions heavily criticized the majority’s “new test,” lamenting that the majority offered lower courts and litigants little guidance for discerning the limits of “related to” specific jurisdiction.