United States: Applying The "Arising Out Of Or Relating To" Personal Jurisdiction Test

Last Updated: January 22 2018
Article by James Beck

Our careers have seen several major pro-defense trends in product liability litigation:

Mainstreaming summary judgment: This happened when we were still young lawyers. A trilogy of United States Supreme Court cases established that summary judgment wasn't an "extraordinary" or "disfavored" procedure, but rather part and parcel of modern litigation. The lead case in the trilogy was Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986).

Preemption and product liability: We remember when our most powerful in product liability litigation was hardly available at all. That changed beginning with Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992).

Limiting junk science: The Supreme Court required the curbing of abusive expert opinions, based mostly on who was paying the supposed "expert," and imposed a significant degree of scientific rigor on defect and causation opinions. The lead case was Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

Purging bogus class actions: Class actions for personal injury used to be a real threat in product liability litigation. They aren't anymore, not since the door was closed by Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997), and Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999).

Making pleadings matter: Not so long ago, complaints were formalities that told us practically nothing about what actually happened, not even what the plaintiff thought happened. That's no longer the case (at least in most courts), thanks to Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (or "TwIqbal" – the term popularized by this blog).

With last term's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) ("BMS"), we think it's now safe to add reducing litigation tourism to our megatrends list. As we discussed at the time, Justice Alito's opinion in BMS (joined by the entire Court, except Justice Sotomayor) meant that the crackdown on general personal jurisdiction epitomized by Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), could not be evaded by "loose and spurious" importation of extraneous forum contacts into the separate Due Process analysis for specific personal jurisdiction. As explained in more detail in that post and others, specific personal jurisdiction is just that – specific, or "case-linked" – to the plaintiff, to the defendant, and the forum. Indeed, the very idea of non-residents attempting to invoke specific jurisdiction is radical – it never happened before Bauman.

BMS reiterated that the purported jurisdictional contacts of other plaintiffs and other defendants don't count in specific personal jurisdiction. 137 S. Ct. at 1781 ("The mere fact that other plaintiffs were prescribed, obtained, and ingested [the product] in California − and allegedly sustained the same injuries as did the nonresidents − does not allow the State to assert specific jurisdiction over the nonresidents' claims."); 1783 ("[A] defendant's relationship with a ... third party, standing alone, is an insufficient basis for jurisdiction") (quoting Walden v. Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1123 (2014)). But the Court, as is its practice, didn't just say no. Rather it held that the minimal record the plaintiffs had established in BMS (they had been content to rely on the penchant of California courts for adopting pro-plaintiff theories) didn't meet the longstanding test for specific personal jurisdiction – "arising from or relating to" the litigation in question.

In BMS the defendant "did not develop [the product] in California, did not create a marketing strategy for [it] in California, and did not manufacture, label, package, or work on the regulatory approval of the product in California." 137 S. Ct. at 1778. "[T]he nonresident [plaintiff]s were not prescribed [the product] in California, did not purchase [it] in California, did not ingest [it] in California, and were not injured by [it] in California. Id. at 1781. Nor was there any claim that the defendant was "derivatively liable" for anyone else's in-state conduct. Id. at 1783. "The bare fact that [the defendant] contracted with [an in-state] distributor is not enough to establish personal jurisdiction in the State." Id.

So that's where we are in the ongoing process of restoring sanity to personal jurisdiction that the Supreme Court has undertaken. Except for a few pockets of "jurisdiction by consent" holdouts (see our post here) general personal jurisdiction is off the board except where a corporate defendant is "at home" – where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business. The new battleground is whether, and to what extent, courts will allow non-residents to assert specific personal jurisdiction under the "arising from or relating to" test. That's what we're looking at today

Thus, we know from BMS that "the suit must arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum." 137 S. Ct. at 1780 (citation and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis original). "[T]he primary [Due Process] concern is the burden on the defendant." Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). The required "affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy" means that "an activity or an occurrence [must] take[] place in the forum State." Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). "[S]pecific jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction." Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). In determining these questions, "the primary concern is "the burden on the defendant. Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).

[R]estrictions on personal jurisdiction . . . are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective States. . . . The sovereignty of each State implies a limitation on the sovereignty of all its sister States. And at times, this federalism interest may be decisive. . . . Even if the defendant would suffer minimal or no inconvenience . . .; even if the forum State has a strong interest in applying its law to the controversy; even if the forum State is the most convenient location for litigation, the Due Process Clause, acting as an instrument of interstate federalism, may sometimes act to divest the State of its power to render a valid judgment.

Id. at 1780-81 (citations and quotation marks omitted)

In sum, existence of specific personal jurisdiction after BMS requires "a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue." Id. at 1781. Thus, BMS recognized two types of possible mass tort aggregation: (1) plaintiffs from anywhere may bring "a consolidated action" in a state that has "general jurisdiction" under Bauman. (2) Plaintiffs who are "residents of a particular state" can "probably sue together in their home states" (assuming that was also where they were injured, and maybe other things in specific cases). Id. at 1783. Although it did not draw the bright line our side would have liked, BMS did not recognize any instance where a non-resident could assert specific personal jurisdiction.

Finally, BMS pointed out that personal jurisdictional rules might be different where a federal court is asked to adjudicate a federal claim. Id. at 1784 (citing Omni Capital International, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 9 (1987)). The Court's page citation to Omni Capital, 484 U.S. at 103 n.5, explains that caveat, since that Omni Capital footnote had preserved a possibility that Congress could permit analysis of nationwide contacts by enacting a statute allowing nationwide service of process. Id. That's not something applicable to state-law product liability actions.

From the discussion in BMS we take away, first, the holding that a "defendant's relationship with a third party, standing alone, is an insufficient basis" for jurisdiction. A defendant's contracting with a separate in-state entity, such as the distributor in BMS, is not a relevant specific personal jurisdiction contact. There would have to be some basis, like alter ego or conspiracy, to impose a separate entity's contacts on a defendant.

Second, BMS requires that the defendant's jurisdictional contacts for specific jurisdiction must relate to a plaintiff's "specific claims" – ruling out more general contacts that would be the same for every plaintiff in the litigation. Thus, that the defendant has a manufacturing plant in a state that made the drug in question doesn't matter if no manufacturing defect claim is alleged, nor should it matter unless the plaintiff can establish that the drug s/he ingested was actually made in that facility. Ditto with testing. An in-state activity related to overall FDA approval wouldn't be "specific" to any plaintiff, and thus should not be not a relevant contact under BMS. However, if a plaintiff were actually enrolled in a clinical trial (say plaintiff X, a Pennsylvania resident, crossed the river and participated in an New Jersey study), and was claiming injury from that participation, that contact would be "specific" to that plaintiff's claims and thus relevant to a BMS specific personal jurisdiction analysis.

Beyond the BMS discussion of the "arising out of"/"relating to" specific personal jurisdiction test, we're doing two things – first, we take another look at the aforementioned Walden case, because of the heavy reliance on Walden in BMS. Second, we ran a search of all previous Supreme Court decision that used the words "arising" and "relating" (in any verb form) in the same sentence, and also mentioned "personal jurisdiction" anywhere in the opinion. That search produced 13 prior Supreme Court cases, a manageable number.

Walden: We already examined the Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014), specific personal jurisdiction decision quite closely back in 2016, following the California Supreme Court's now overturned ruling in BMS. First we note that Walden involved federal constitutional claims (a so-called "Bivens" action), brought in federal court, id. at 1120, so the BMS Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment caveat doesn't seem to matter in practice (and we won't mention it further). Plaintiff was a Nevada resident, asserting the specific jurisdiction of his home state, suing over a currency seizure by a Georgia police officer who acted in Georgia. Id. at 1119-20. As an in-state plaintiff, not only did he assert specific personal jurisdiction in the usual way, but a fortiori he had far more forum contacts than the litigation tourists who frequent drug/device mass torts. However, as emphasized by BMS, the "primary concern" is with the defendant's situation, so our focus in Walden is on what the Court had to say about the defendant's contacts/conduct.

Walden held, as to a defendant, "the relationship must arise out of contacts that the defendant himself creates with the forum State," and "the defendant's suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum." Id. at 1122 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Further, "minimum contacts analysis looks to the defendant's contacts with the forum State itself, not the defendant's contacts with persons who reside there," id., which in Walden included the plaintiff himself. "[R]andom, fortuitous or attenuated contacts [a defendant] makes by interacting with other persons affiliated with the State" are insufficient. Id. at 1123. Neither the plaintiffs nor a third-party's "unilateral activity" count. Id. at 1222. Mere knowledge that the future plaintiff was affiliated with the forum state doesn't count:

Petitioner's actions in [another state] did not create sufficient contacts with [the forum] simply because he allegedly directed his conduct at plaintiffs whom he knew had [forum] connections. Such reasoning improperly attributes a plaintiff's forum connections to the defendant.

Id. at 1125. Thus, "the mere fact that [defendant's] conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to the forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction." Id. at 1126.

In Walden, like BMS, "no part of [defendant's] course of conduct occurred in" the forum state. Id. at 1124. Plaintiff could not compensate for that lack of activity through reliance on "knowledge of [plaintiff's] strong forum connections. Id. at 1124-25. "The proper question is not where the plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect but whether the defendant's conduct connects him to the forum in a meaningful way." Id. at 1125. The Court also held that, where a plaintiff "would experience this same [injury] . . . wherever else they might have" been, specific personal jurisdiction on the basis of such a contact could not be sustained. Id. If "the effects of [defendant's] conduct" would be the same anywhere, that conduct was "not connected to the forum State in a way that makes those effects a proper basis for jurisdiction." Id.

Walden thus yields the following takeaways: (1) The defendant's contacts must create a "substantial connection." One of several dozen clinical trials shouldn't cut it. Nor should a trivial and irrelevant step in the manufacturing process, such as the presence of a packaging or processing facility where packaging/processing is not an issue in litigation. (2) As held in BMS, jurisdictional contacts must be a defendant's own, not those of some other in-state entity with which the defendant has some sort of relationship. (3) Walden's "same injury wherever else [a plaintiff] might have been" holding reinforces the "specific claims" discussion in BMS. A general contact, as to which any plaintiff from anywhere could claim the same sort of injury and causation, cannot be a specific jurisdiction forum contact. Purported contacts relating to, for example, the invention of a medical device, the testing of a prescription medical product, the preparation of FDA submissions – all of these are general contacts that any plaintiff anywhere could equally well assert. Those are not what specific jurisdiction is about under BMS and Walden.

Other specific personal jurisdiction cases: First, where did the "arising out of"/"relating to" specific personal jurisdiction test originate? We tracked that down. Ironically, the current formulation of this test was first articulated in Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984), a case that neither involved specific jurisdiction nor applied the test. See 466 U.S. at 415 ("[a]ll parties . . . concede[d] that [plaintiffs'] claims . . . did not "arise out of," and are not related to, [defendant's] activities within" the forum state"). That being said, the Court in Helicopteros Nacionales stated:

Due process requirements are satisfied when . . . a nonresident corporate defendant . . . has certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. When a controversy is related to or "arises out of" a defendant's contacts with the forum, the Court has said that a "relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation" is the essential foundation of in personam jurisdiction.

Id. at 414 (quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204 (1977)) (other citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). Shaffer, however, does not contain "arising out of"/"relating to" language – that phraseology actually comes from a law review article cited in a footnote in Helicopteros Nacionales. See 466 U.S. at 414 n.8 (citing von Mehren & Trautman, "Jurisdiction to Adjudicate: A Suggested Analysis," 79 Harv. L. Rev. 1121, 1144-64 (1966)). The von Mehren & Trautman article stated, "[i]n the case of specific jurisdiction, the assertion of power to adjudicate is limited to matters arising out of − or intimately related to − the affiliating circumstances on which the jurisdictional claim is based." 79 Harv. L. Rev. at 1144-45. So that is the origin of the relevant test applied in subsequent specific personal jurisdiction cases, up to and including BMS.

Helicopteros Nacionales contains a second interesting footnote, noting the existence (but did not deciding) of some specific personal jurisdiction issues:

[W]e decline to reach the questions (1) whether the terms "arising out of" and "related to" describe different connections between a cause of action and a defendant's contacts with a forum, and (2) what sort of tie between a cause of action and a defendant's contacts with a forum is necessary to a determination that either connection exists. Nor do we reach the question whether, if the two types of relationship differ, a forum's exercise of personal jurisdiction in a situation where the cause of action "relates to," but does not "arise out of," the defendant's contacts with the forum should be analyzed as an assertion of specific jurisdiction.

Id. at 415 n.10. Aside from this mention in Helicopteros Nacionales, these questions have never been addressed by the Supreme Court. We will not address them either.

Other than BMS and Walden, the most recent specific personal jurisdiction case utilizing the "arising out of"/"relating to" specific personal jurisdiction test is J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011), a decision concerning so-called "stream of commerce" jurisdiction that did not produce a majority opinion. We previously discussed Nicastro here. "When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds." Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977). Thus, we need to pay careful attention to the concurring opinion of Justices Breyer and Alito in Nicastro.

Nicastro was brought in New Jersey. Specific personal jurisdiction over an overseas defendant had been asserted on the basis of: (1) an out-of-state independent national distributor; (2) attendance at conventions elsewhere in the United States, and (3) the injury-causing product ending up in New Jersey. 564 U.S. at 878. Four justices (in an opinion by Justice Kennedy) held that none of these contacts involved an "act by which the defendant purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State" that would allow personal jurisdiction. Id. at 880 (citation and quotation marks omitted). None of the facts supported the specific targeting of New Jersey, therefore no specific personal jurisdiction existed. Id. at 886.

A state's "strong interest in protecting its citizens from defective products" cannot overcome Due Process, since "the Constitution commands restraint before discarding liberty in the name of expediency." Id. at 887. A defendant:

submits to the judicial power of an otherwise foreign sovereign to the extent that power is exercised in connection with the defendant's activities touching on the State. In other words, submission through contact with and activity directed at a sovereign may justify specific jurisdiction in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum.

Id. at 881 (citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). Applying federalism over foreseeability, these four justices rejected stream of commerce altogether. See Id. at 886 ("the stream-of-commerce metaphor cannot supersede either the mandate of the Due Process Clause or the limits on judicial authority").

"The principal inquiry in cases of this sort is whether the defendant's activities manifest an intention to submit to the power of a sovereign." Id. at 882. Thus, a "defendant's transmission of goods permits the exercise of jurisdiction only where the defendant can be said to have targeted the forum; as a general rule, it is not enough that the defendant might have predicted that its goods will reach the forum State." Id. Specific "personal jurisdiction requires a forum-by-forum, or sovereign-by-sovereign, analysis." Id. at 884. After all, where specific jurisdiction is unavailable, "the courts of [a defendant's] home State are available and can exercise general jurisdiction." Id.

The Nicastro concurrence did not reach as broadly. It held only that "a single sale of a product in a State does not constitute an adequate basis for asserting jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant, even if that defendant places his goods in the stream of commerce, fully aware (and hoping) that such a sale will take place." Id. at 888-89 (citations omitted). The concurring justices refrained from adopting the plurality's "strict rules that limit jurisdiction where a defendant does not intend to submit to the power of a sovereign." Id. at 890.

[As an aside, with Justice Alito having since written the federalism-based BMS decision, the continued viability of any form of stream of commerce jurisdiction is now open to serious question − but that is not the focus of today's post.]

Nor could the Nicastro concurrence countenance specific jurisdiction based on foreseeability. Specific jurisdiction "rest[s] upon a particular notion of defendant-focused fairness." Id. at 891. They reject any rule that:

would permit every State to assert jurisdiction in a products-liability suit against any domestic manufacturer who sells its products (made anywhere in the United States) to a national distributor, no matter how large or small the manufacturer, no matter how distant the forum, and no matter how few the number of items that end up in the particular forum at issue.

Id. (emphasis added).

Nicastro thus reinforces our takeaways from BMA and Walden with the concurrence's rejection of jurisdictional theories that would expand specific personal jurisdiction to allow product liability suits against corporate defendants to be brought in "every State" no matter how remote from where the defendant operates. "Fairness" concerns as to specific jurisdiction are "defendant-focused."

The specific personal jurisdiction test was also applied in Burnham v. Superior Court, 495 U.S. 604, 616 (1990). Burnham, like Walden, did not involve a corporate defendant. The issue was whether jurisdiction was still obtainable by personal service on a defendant physically in the jurisdiction, without regard for minimum contacts. Id. at 608. Burnham, thus decided an attempt to restrict, rather than expand, traditional jurisdictional principles. Moreover the decision is a mess. In Burnham, the Court was even more split than Nicastro, producing four opinions, mostly dealing with the whether the "time honored," id. at 622, tradition of individual personal service remained valid, in and of itself, or required an additional "minimum contacts" analysis.

Justice Scalia, writing for three justices (and sometimes four) in Burnham, predictably answered "no." "The short of the matter is that jurisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system that define the due process standard." 495 U.S. at 619. Principles protecting "absent nonresident[]" defendants were not applicable. Id. at 620. These justices also rejected jurisdictional rules based on "fairness" as the guiding principle. Id. at 625-26. Justice White's partial concurrence in the opinion and concurrence in the result, also relied on tradition but not as rigidly. Id. at 629 ("I cannot agree that . . . all traditional rules of jurisdiction are, ipso facto, forever constitutional").

Justice Brennan, writing for three justices in Burnham, went the other way: "[E]very assertion of state-court jurisdiction, even one pursuant to a 'traditional' rule such as transient jurisdiction, must comport with contemporary notions of due process." Id. at 632. Justice Stevens agreed with everybody and nobody, found an "easy case," and offered practically no reasoning. Id. at 640. Only Justice Brennan undertook to apply the "arising out of"/"relating to" specific personal jurisdiction test:

[J]urisdiction is often a function of geography. The transient rule is consistent with reasonable expectations and is entitled to a strong presumption that it comports with due process. . . . [A] state has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction over an individual who is present within its territory unless the individual's relationship to the state is so attenuated as to make the exercise of such jurisdiction unreasonable.

Id. at 637 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Justice Brennan's concurrence, however, also advanced a proposition that was definitively rejected by BMS – "an out-of-state plaintiff may use state courts in all circumstances in which those courts would be available to state citizens." Id. at 638. As already discussed, BMS rejected this analogy, when it held that the non-resident plaintiffs could not assert specific jurisdiction to the same extent as resident plaintiffs. 137 S. Ct. at 1781.

The many peculiarities of Burnham – the number of opinions, most of the opinions' reliance on "tradition," the attempt to restrict (rather than expand) traditional jurisdiction, non-corporate parties – make it impossible to garner any significant takeaways from the decision. If Burnham stands for anything, it would be the inapplicability of Due Process tests involving "absent nonresident[]" defendants to cases involving individuals who were physically in the jurisdiction.

The "arising out of"/"relating to" specific personal jurisdiction test was also applied in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985).

Where a forum seeks to assert specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who has not consented to suit there, [personal jurisdiction] is satisfied if the defendant has "purposefully directed" his activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation results from alleged injuries that "arise out of or relate to" those activities.

Id. at 472 (citation and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). Michigan franchisees claimed they were not subject to suit in Florida (as provided by contract) because the litigation did not "arise" from Florida. Id. at 469. They had "never even visited there." Id. at 479. Burger King held that specific personal jurisdiction nonetheless existed, primarily because of the nature of the parties' contract. "[P]arties who reach out beyond one state and create continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of another state are subject to regulation and sanctions in the other State for the consequences of their activities." Id. at 473. "[T]he Due Process Clause may not readily be wielded as a territorial shield to avoid interstate obligations that have been voluntarily assumed." Id. at 474.

Mere "foreseeability of causing injury in another State . . . is not a sufficient benchmark for exercising personal jurisdiction." Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). While a contract, without more does not confer personal jurisdiction, id. at 748, a contract that "established a substantial and continuing relationship with" an out-of-state entity does. Id. at 487. Where a party "reached out" and entered into a contract that "voluntar[ily] accept[ed] the long-term and exacting regulation of his business from" out of state, then the relationship is not "random, fortuitous, or attenuated," so that a claim of breach does not "arise from" those out-of-state obligations. Id. at 479-80 (citations and quotation marks omitted).

The takeaway from Burger King is that defendants (including corporate defendants) that "reach out" and affirmatively "establish a substantial and continuing relationship" with someone in a jurisdiction are amenable to suit there, even if they have never had a physical presence there. If not, then they don't – or, at least, should not be subject to specific personal jurisdiction.

The rest of the cases turned up by our search were less relevant to the test for specific personal jurisdiction. As in Helicopteros Nacionales, the Court recited the specific personal jurisdiction test in Bauman, although that case turned on general, rather than specific, jurisdiction. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014). "Adjudicatory authority of this order, in which the suit 'aris[es] out of or relate[s] to the defendant's contacts with the forum,' is today called 'specific jurisdiction.'" Id. at 755 (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales). A similar statement – prescient, because the test itself was not formulated until decades later − is found in Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952), observing that because the "cause of action sued upon did not arise in [the forum] and does not relate to the corporation's activities there," the issue was general, not specific, jurisdiction. Id. at 439. Neither case contains any analysis if the specific jurisdiction test.

In Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958), the terms appear in a dissent, and not as a test for jurisdiction. Id. at 258-59. The same is true (except for the dissent part) in the older (pre-International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)) decision Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 464 (1940). The remaining cases were not really personal jurisdiction cases at all. Several involve "arising out of"/"relating to" in arbitration agreements and dealt with arbitration-related issues. See CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 565 U.S. 95, 104 (2012); Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Construction Co., 529 U.S. 193, 195 (2000); Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 4 (1984). Finally, the language also appears in a dissent in a sovereign immunity case. Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 379 (1993).

Thus, based on review of every United States Supreme Court case ever expressly employing the "arising out of"/"relating to" test for specific personal jurisdiction we conclude, first, that to allow a non-resident plaintiff to maintain specific personal jurisdiction on any basis would be unprecedented. Every United States Supreme Court specific jurisdiction decision that we've read has involved a plaintiff who was a resident of the jurisdiction in which the suit was brought. Beyond that, the cases provide the following takeaways:

  • For forum contacts to support specific personal jurisdiction, they must relate to a "specific" plaintiff. They cannot be such that "wherever else" plaintiffs might reside, they could all assert the same supposed contact.
  • Specific jurisdiction contacts cannot support jurisdiction in multiple states.
  • Contractual arrangements with in-state entities do not create specific jurisdiction. Unless a basis exists to create vicarious liability, the only relevant contacts are those of the defendant itself.
  • Forum contacts related to the product (e.g., pertaining to FDA approval), but not specific to a particular plaintiff's claim, do not create specific jurisdiction.
  • Forum contacts that are unrelated to the particular claims of a particular plaintiff (e.g. packaging in a design defect case) cannot support specific jurisdiction.
  • Forum contacts must be "substantial" (or "substantial and continuing," depending on which decision one quotes), so the presence in the forum state of one of numerous similar activities conducted by the defendant nationwide (e.g., a sales representative, or a clinical trial) cannot create personal jurisdiction unless relevant to the plaintiff's particular circumstances.

This article is presented for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
James Beck
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions