Specific facts that can inform these broad factors include: Distributor is agent, not independent, of manufacturer; Distributor deals exclusively in manufacturer's product; Distributor has well-known distribution network; Manufacturer and distributor are parent/subsidiary, or in same corporate family; Manufacturer and distributor are several layers of distribution apart; Manufacturer directs distributor's marketing efforts; Manufacturer retains authority to approve sales; Manufacturer directly markets to consumers or services consumers; Manufacturer makes consumer-ready product, not component part; Manufacturer makes product for forum-specific use; Manufacturer is large or sophisticated; Manufacturer exports large volume of goods; and Product is exported to area that is geographically close to place of injury. __________________________1 444 U.S. 286, 298 (1980).2 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011).3 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011).4Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Office of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)); accord Asahi Metal Indus.

allory centers his appellate argument solely upon the mandatory registration requirement that provides Pennsylvania courts with exclusive authority to grant general personal jurisdiction over companies like Norfolk, without more.The trial court disagreed with Mr. Mallory and held that the current Pennsylvania law that gives courts general personal jurisdiction over all foreign corporations who register to do business in Pennsylvania, even if they lack continuous and systematic contacts within that Commonwealth rendering them at home, fails to comply with the 14th Amendment due process clause.4 The plaintiff appealed, but the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania agreed with the trial court and found that Norfolk’s compliance with the mandatory registration requirement does not qualify as a voluntary consent to general personal jurisdiction.5The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Mallory relied on two past Supreme Court decisions in making its ruling: Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 923 (2011) and Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014). In Goodyear, the US Supreme Court held that the exercise of general personal jurisdiction over a defendant on the basis of a stream of commerce theory did not comport with the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.6 In other words, in a products liability action, a court may not exercise general jurisdiction over a defendant manufacturer or supplier when the product at issue merely traveled in or through the forum state, without more. In Goodyear, North Carolina plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action in North Carolina following a bus accident that occurred in France which killed the plaintiffs’ sons.7 The court ruled that, merely because some of the defective tires associated with the bus at issue had reached North Carolina, North Carolina courts could not exercise general personal jurisdiction over Goodyear, an Ohio corporation with several international affiliates relevant to the action.8 Specifically, the rule on general jurisdict

o general jurisdiction over all claims against the corporation. Both the trial court and Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court have found the provision in the Pennsylvania code requiring submission to jurisdiction to be invalid as ‘repugnant’ to the constitution and standing as a ‘Hobson’s Choice’ - where one must choose between accepting whatever is available or have nothing at all.SCOTUS has shown a desire to guide business practices, allowing “out-of-state defendants to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit.” Should Norfolk Southern prevail, the mandatory acceptance/waiver of jurisdiction scheme, described in lower courts as a “Hobson’s choice”, would be struck down. Should Mallory prevail, it is foreseeable that more cases will be filed in Pennsylvania. Further, other states may decide to follow Pennsylvania’s lead in creating mandatory jurisdiction clauses as a condition for foreign corporations. 564 U.S. 915, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 180 L. Ed. 2d 796 (2011). 571 U.S. 117, 134 S. Ct. 746, 187 L. Ed. 2d 624, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 503 (2014).Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 180 L. Ed. 2d 796 (2011) (internal citations omitted).Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154 (1945)Id. at 317Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 180 L. Ed. 2d 796 (2011).Id.Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 137 S. Ct. 1773, 198 L. Ed. 2d 395 (2017). Cf. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154 (1945) Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 134 S. Ct. 746, 187 L. Ed. 2d 624, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 503 (2014). Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 180 L. Ed. 2d 796 (2011). BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549, 198 L. Ed. 2d 36 (2017). Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).Cf. 42 Pa. C.S. § 5322.Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 134 S. Ct. 746, 187 L. Ed. 2d 624, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 503 (2014) at 139, internal quotations omitted.

gn statutory trust registration requirement), 34-275a(a) (foreign limited liability company registration requirement); 33-926 (foreign corporation registered office and agent requirement), 34-38p (foreign limited partnership registered agent requirement), 34-532 (foreign statutory trust registered agent requirement), 34-275b, 34-243n (foreign limited liability company registered agent requirement). [4] Wallenta v. Avis Rent a Car System Inc., 10 Conn. App. 201 (1987). [5] Id. at 203-04. [6] Id. at 208. [7] Talenti v. Morgan & Bros., 113 Conn. App. 845 (2009). [8] Conn. Gen. Stat. §33-929(f). [9] Id. at 847-48. [10] Id. at 856. [11] Id. at 855. [12] Id. at 856 n.14. [13] Id. at 854-55. [14] Id. at 855. [15] WorldCare Ltd. Corp. v. World Ins. Co., 767 F. Supp. 2d 341, 355-56 (D. Conn. 2011). [16] DiBella v. Hopkins, 403 F.3d 102, 112 (2d Cir. 2005). [17] Lake Rd. Tr. LTD. v. ABB Inc., 2011 WL 1734458 (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 11, 2011). [18] Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011). [19] Id. at 924. [20] See id. at 928 (quoting Donahue v. Far Eastern Air Transport Corp., 652 F.2d 1032, 1037 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). [21] Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 138-39 (2014) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted) (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919). [22] Brown v. CBS Corp., 19 F. Supp. 3d 390 (D. Conn. 2014), aff'd sub nom. Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 814 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 2016). [23] Id. at 398. [24] Id. at 391-92. [25] Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 814 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 2016). [26] Id. at 641 ("We need not reach that [constitutional] question here, however, because we conclude that the Connecticut business registration statute did not require Lockheed to consent to general jurisdiction in exchange for the right to do business in the state."); id. ("in the absence of a clear legislative statement and a definitive interpretation by the Connecticut Supreme Court and in light of constitutional concerns, we construe Connecticut's registration statute and appo

be prepared to be haled into Pennsylvania courts, by out-of-state defendants, for conduct occurring wholly outside of Pennsylvania. Indeed, the plurality’s opinion could be an open invitation to do so. Corporations across the country that may not be registered to do business in Pennsylvania should also pay heed; as the plurality acknowledges, other states may have thus far declined to adopt similar consent-by-registration statutes.29 That position, however, could change following the Court’s decision in Mallory, particularly if there is push by the plaintiffs’ bar for more states to follow Pennsylvania’s lead.1 Mallory v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., --- S.Ct. ---, No. 21-1168, 2023 WL 4187749 (U.S. June 27, 2023).2 See 15 PA. C.S. § 411(a).3 42 PA. CONS. STAT. § 5301(a)(2).4 Mallory v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 266 A.3d 542 (Pa. 2021) (“Mallory”), vacated and remanded, No. 21-1168, 2023 WL 4187749 (U.S. June 27, 2023) (“Mallory 2”).5 Id. at 551.6 Id.7Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011).8Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014).9 Mallory, at 567-68.10Id. at 567.11 For further discussion, see our previous alerts on this subject: Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Consider Whether Business Registration Subjects an Out-of-State Company to General Personal Jurisdiction (Jan. 14, 2021); Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rejects Business Registration as Means for Consent to Personal Jurisdiction (Jan. 26, 2022).12Mallory, at 569.13 Mallory 2, at *7; see also id. (“Pennsylvania Fire controls this case.”).14 Id. at *5.15 Id. at *6.16 Id. at *7 (quoting Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989)).17 International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)18 Mallory 2, at *8.19 Id.20 Id.21Id. (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, 564 U.S. at 927-28).22 Id. at *10.23Id. at *11.24 Id.25Id.26 Id. at *12 (quoting Insurance Corp. of Ireland, 456 U.S. at 704-05, 102 S.Ct. 2099).27 Id. at *11-12 (citing South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 585 U.S. ___, __

United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, July 21, 2022In this asbestos action, defendant Honeywell International Inc., f/k/a Allied Signal Inc. as successor-in-interest to The Bendix Corporation filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff failed to respond to Honeywell’s motion.A district court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant “who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). An Illinois district court must therefore inquire whether the defendant has certain minimum contact with Illinois “such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 134 S. Ct. 746, 754, 187 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2014) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2853, 180 L. Ed. 2d 796 (2011)). Personal jurisdiction may be either specific or general. Daimler AG, 134 S. Ct. at 701-03.Specific jurisdiction exists when an out-of-state 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.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-73, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985) (internal citations omitted). General jurisdiction exists over foreign corporations “when their affiliations with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.” Goodyear, 131 S. Ct. at 2851. The place of incorporation and principal place of business are paradigm bases for general jurisdiction. Daimler AG, 134 S. Ct. at 760 (internal quotations omitted).In the matter at hand, plaintiff is a resident of Ohio. She alleges exposure to asbestos in her family home in Ohio, and through her work and her husband’s work at a Borg

This blog post only focuses on the Court’s determination of Renren’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.In New York, “[a] court may exercise general jurisdiction over a defendant pursuant to CPLR 301 on all causes of action where the defendant’s ties to New York ‘are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the forum state” (Renren, Inc., 67 Misc. 3d 1219[A], at *10 citing Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v Brown, 564 US 915, 919 [2011], quoting International Shoe Co. v Washington, 326 US 310, 317 [1945]). For individuals, general jurisdiction is based on the individual’s domicile (id.).

[1] No. 16-466, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 3873 (June 19, 2017).[2] 564 U.S. 915 (2011).[3] 480 U.S. 102 (1987).

The International Shoe standard stood untouched for years, as the Court trained its eye on specific jurisdiction standards. Over time, however, the general jurisdiction standard became muddled, such that the Court revisited the issue in two recent cases: Goodyear Dunlop Tire Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011), and Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014). In Goodyear, the Court addressed the question of whether a state court could exercise personal jurisdiction over the international subsidiaries of a U.S. parent corporation when the plaintiffs' claims arose from conduct outside the state (indeed, outside the country).

550 A.2d 1105 (Del. 1988).Genuine Parts, 2016 WL 1569077 at *6.Id.Id. 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011).Genuine Parts, 2016 WL 1569077 at *8 (quoting Goodyear, 131 S. Ct at 2851).