U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM Background
In 1917, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a due process challenge to a Missouri statute that required corporations to consent to personal jurisdiction for all purposes as a condition of registering to do business in the state. That case, Pennsylvania Fire Insurance v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling, was never overruled. Many believed, however, that the "Court's transformative decision on personal jurisdiction in International Shoe" invalidated corporate registration as a basis for all purpose or "general" jurisdiction. The Supreme Court recently reinforced that belief in Daimler AG v. Bauman, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, corporations are only subject to general jurisdiction in two "paradigm" forum states—where they are incorporated and where they maintain their principal place of business.'Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway'—Another General Jurisdiction Sea Change or Much Ado About Nothing?
Last month, the Supreme Court held that general jurisdiction can extend further without offending due process. In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway, the court upheld Pennsylvania's exercise of general jurisdiction over a corporation that consented to jurisdiction as a condition of registering to do business under a statute similar to the one at issue in Pennsylvania Fire.
August 11, 2023 at 09:54 AM
8 minute read
Litigation
U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM
Background
In 1917, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a due process challenge to a Missouri statute that required corporations to consent to personal jurisdiction for all purposes as a condition of registering to do business in the state. That case, Pennsylvania Fire Insurance v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling, was never overruled. Many believed, however, that the "Court's transformative decision on personal jurisdiction in International Shoe" invalidated corporate registration as a basis for all purpose or "general" jurisdiction. The Supreme Court recently reinforced that belief in Daimler AG v. Bauman, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, corporations are only subject to general jurisdiction in two "paradigm" forum states—where they are incorporated and where they maintain their principal place of business.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Lululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute read
Poll Workers Seek Contempt Against Rudy Giuliani, Alleging Continued Defamation
Rudy Giuliani's Attorneys Seek Withdrawal in Debt Enforcement Case
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
