A guest post from three of the many smart lawyers at Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy LLC. Unlike me, they can keep up, and the knowledge and posts are very much appreciated.
| March 3, 2017 Not One, but Two, State Supreme Courts Uphold Strict Application of Daimler This Week by Stephanie A. Fox, Antoinette D. Hubbard and Donald R. Kinsley Two decisions issued this week by state supreme courts show the upheaval that is taking place in personal jurisdiction, and are representative of the legal questions being pondered by attorneys and within many federal and state courts across this nation since January 2014. Does Daimler apply to my case? Will its application benefit the final outcome of my litigation? In the now-seminal Daimler AG v. Bauman , 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) opinion, the Supreme Court revisited the issue of personal jurisdiction in a way not seen since Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310 (1945) and Pennoyer v. Neff , 95 U.S. 714 (1878) and confirmed unequivocally that a court cannot assert general jurisdiction over a corporation unless that corporation (1) is either incorporated or principally based in that forum; or (2) has affiliations with the forum that are “so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home” there. Id. (quotation marks and brackets omitted) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown , 564 US 915 (2011). If nothing else, Daimler was an attempt to maintain restrictions on the exercise of general jurisdiction, not to expand it, and to provide corporations some predictability on where they may be sued. Since Daimler, many courts have been presented with motions by defendants seeking dismissal based upon lack of general personal jurisdiction. Some state courts have vigorously supported the application of Daimler, while others have found factual differences to deny such personal jurisdiction challenges. Numerous opinions have been issued in the past two (2) years, but what remains uncertain is the long- term application going forward. That may become clearer when the Court decides the two cases being argued next month: BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell , No. 16-405, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Californi a, No. 16-466. Oral arguments for both are scheduled for April 25, 2017. This week, however, non-resident defendants sued in Missouri and Oregon were given more clarity on Daimler‘s impact, at least for the immediate future. On February 28, 2017, the Missouri Supreme Court issued its ruling in State ex rel. Norfolk So. Ry. Co. v. Hon. Colleen Dolan, No. SC95514, applying a strict reading of Daimler. The Court held that Missouri courts do not have personal jurisdiction (specific or general) over Norfolk Southern Railway Company. Russell Parker, an Indiana resident, brought a Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA) suit in St. Louis County, alleging injury as a result of his years of employment by Norfolk Southern in Indiana. Norfolk Southern Railway is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business in Virginia. Norfolk moved for lack of personal jurisdiction, which was overruled (without opinion) by the trial court. A petition for writ of prohibition or, in the alternative, a writ of mandamus, was subsequently denied by the Missouri Court of Appeals. Further appeal was made by Norfolk to the Missouri Supreme Court. Parker argued that Missouri courts had both general and specific jurisdiction over Norfolk, and, alternatively, that Norfolk consented to personal jurisdiction by registering to do business in Missouri and appointing a Missouri agent for service of process, or that FELA conferred specific personal jurisdiction over a railroad in any state where the railroad owned or operated tracks. The Missouri Supreme Court rejected all of Parker’s arguments, holding that, while prior to Daimler, Norfolk’s “continuous and systemic” business in Missouri would have supported general jurisdiction, post Daimler that, “…is no longer the law.” Slip op. at 6. Instead, the Court found Norfolk’s contacts insufficient to establish general jurisdiction. Applying Daimler, the Court held that courts can only exercise general jurisdiction over a corporation if that...
|
