Supreme Court Given Opportunity to Clarify Specific Personal Jurisdiction

eric-millerGuest Commentary

By Eric D. Miller, Partner, Perkins Coie LLP*

A pending petition for a writ of certiorari presents the United States Supreme Court with an opportunity to clarify whether a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant based solely on the defendant’s sale of components to third parties who incorporate those parts into finished products that are then sold in the forum State.

That question has divided the lower courts since Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987). In that case, Asahi, a Japanese manufacturer, had delivered tire-valve assemblies to a Taiwanese tire manufacturer that sold tires throughout the world, including in California. After a California resident was injured in an accident caused by a defective valve, he sued Asahi in California state court. The Supreme Court held that Asahi was not subject to personal jurisdiction in California, but no rationale commanded a majority of the Court. Justice O’Connor, writing for four justices, concluded that the connection between the defendant and the forum state necessary to establish specific personal jurisdiction “must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum state.” In her view, placing a product “into the stream of commerce, without more,” is not such an act. Justice Brennan, on the other hand, wrote for four justices who believed that placement of goods into the stream of commerce, with the knowledge that they will ultimately be sold in a state, can be sufficient for jurisdiction in that state. Continue reading

The New Era of “Daimler” Yields Confusion in the Lower Courts

bnsfPrior to the US Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, general jurisdiction existed over a business defendant in any state where it was incorporated, had its principal place of business, or its contacts were so “continuous and systematic” as to render them essentially at home in the forum state.  Under this expansive interpretation, corporations could be subject to lawsuits in unpredictable and often remote jurisdictions.

Daimler significantly narrowed the reach of general jurisdiction by holding that because Daimler and MBUSA were neither incorporated nor had their principal place of business in California, Daimler’s contacts with California were not enough to render it at home in the state. Continue reading

Friday Finger on the Pulse: From Our Blogroll and Beyond

  • Be the boss, go to jail?: Responsible corporate office doctrine threatens C-suite executives with prosecution for unknown acts of employees (Corporate Counsel)
  • Due-process arguments and state-court class actions (Class Action Countermeasures)
  • The Supreme Court and laches: Reading into the SCA Hygiene oral argument (Patently-O)
  • New York Court of Appeals finds unconventional litigation-financing agreement constitutes champerty (D&O Diary)
  • The meaning of “foreign official” in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act remains elusive (FCPA Professor)
  • Federal trial court applies general-jurisdiction principles from Bauman in class-action lawsuit (Drug & Device Law)
  • Has the famed Gateway to the West become a gateway to a pot of gold? : Huge talc litigation verdict furthers St. Louis’s pro-plaintiff reputation (Guideposts Punitive Damages Blog)
  • In State of Washington, communications between in-house counsel and former employees are no longer protected per 5-4 state supreme court ruling (Corporate Counsel)
  • Northern District of California gives Spokeo decision a Lyft in rejecting plaintiffs’ standing to sue the ride-sharing company (Classified)

Friday Finger on the Pulse: From Our Blogroll and Beyond

  • FCC privacy rule frowns upon arbitration, announces forthcoming rule to ban its use in Internet service provider-customer privacy disputes (Truth on the Market)
  • Five takeaways from influential Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies conference on settlement of class actions (Class Action Countermeasures)
  • DOJ’s settlement of two False Claims Act suits indicate impacts of Yates Memo and its call for individual accountability on federal civil enforcement (D&O Diary)
  • Why are certain counties in Pennsylvania (such as Lackawanna) strong magnets for tort litigation? (Scranton Times-Tribune; HT to Overlawyered, article quotes editor Walter Olson)
  • Empty claim on empty packaging space: Federal judge says “it defies logic” that slack fill in ibuprofen bottle (that lists pill count on label) would deceive plaintiff into a purchase (Drug and Device Law)
  • Speaking of slack fill, a plaintiff named Wurtzburger is suing KFC for $20 million because her $20 bucket of chicken wasn’t overflowing (Abnormal Use)
  • Ninth Circuit denied rehearing in case discussed in WLF Legal Pulse guest commentary that equated falling air emissions with deposits of hazardous waste under CERCLA (Corporate Environmental Lawyer)
  • Ruling on a case noted in Sept. 30 WLF Legal Backgrounder, Seventh Circuit follows Supreme Court’s restrictive view of implied-certification theory under False Claims Act (Fried Frank FraudMail)
  • Two overlooked, but critical, aspects of DC Circuit’s decision finding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s structure unconstitutional (Asset Securitization Report)
  • Expect more activist group petitions seeking threatened or endangered status for species based on future risk of climate change after recent adventurous Ninth Circuit ruling (Law and the Environment)

After Oral Argument in “Salman v. US,” Will Supreme Court Meaningfully Limit What Counts as Insider Trading?

bainbridgeFeatured Expert Contributor — Corporate Governance/Securities Law

Stephen M. Bainbridge, William D. Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

Over a three-year period from 2004 to 2007, Citigroup investment banker Maher Kara disclosed confidential nonpublic information about upcoming mergers and acquisitions to his brother Michael Kara. In turn, Michael disclosed the information to his close friend Bassam Salman, who then indirectly traded in the affected stocks. When Salman was tried on charges of illegal insider trading, the government offered evidence that he knew the information originated with Maher.

The case presented two issues: First, what is the basis of liability when an insider tips information to an outsider? Second, what must the government prove in order to hold a remote tippee liable when the information is passed down a chain from tipper to tippee to a tippee of that tippee and so on? Continue reading

Video of WLF’s 30th Annual Preview Briefing of US Supreme Court Term Now Available

Our annual briefing was moderated by WLF Legal Policy Advisory Board Chairman Jay Stephens and featured commentary on free-enterprise-oriented cases the Court will hear this Term by Neal Katyal of Hogan Lovells and Daryl Joseffer of King & Spalding LLP.

The following materials were provided to attendees:

The Supreme Court’s NOT Top 10: October Term 2015 Petitions the Justices Should Have Granted

supreme courtThis Monday the U.S. Supreme Court will conduct its Long Conference, so named for the larger than usual number of certiorari petitions it considers there.  With the fate of so many cert petitions hanging in the balance—and the overwhelming majority of them about to be denied—now is an opportune time to look back at the top 10 cases that were wrongly denied cert in the Court’s last term.

As with the previous installments of my “Not Top 10” list (see here and here), no more than half the cases discussed below will be ones in which Washington Legal Foundation filed a brief in support of certiorari.  Also, the cases will once again be limited to those that affect economic liberty, including the need for legal certainty around key legal policies and regulatory regimes.  From WLF’s free-enterprise perspective, those cases that implicate competition in the marketplace, limited and accountable government, individual and business civil liberties, or rule of law concerns matter the most. Continue reading