Registering to Do Business in Pa. Means You Can Be Sued in Pa., Court Rules
A company registering to do business in Pennsylvania, even as a foreign corporation, can be sued in the state's courts, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled in a case of first impression.
September 26, 2018 at 03:42 PM
3 minute read
A company registering to do business in Pennsylvania, even as a foreign corporation, can be sued in the state's courts, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled in a case of first impression.
The ruling came in the case of several New York firefighters who sued Federal Signal Corp. over hearing loss from excessive sound exposure from fire engine sirens. The lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania, where Federal Signal is registered as a foreign corporation.
Initially, a Philadelphia judge dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, but the Superior Court reversed that ruling. The appellate court noted that the issue of business registration was not addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daimler AG v. Bauman, a case in which the justices ruled that jurisdiction could not be exercised over a corporation in a state where that corporation was not “at home.”
“We observe that whether a foreign corporation consents to general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania by registering to do business in the commonwealth is a matter of first impression in this court,” Superior Court Senior Judge William Platt wrote in the court's majority opinion. “Our review of the caselaw has revealed that neither this court nor our Supreme Court has had the occasion to determine whether, post-Daimler, registering to do business as a foreign corporation in the commonwealth constitutes consent for the purposes of exercising general personal jurisdiction.”
The court turned to Bors v. Johnson & Johnson, a case from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, for guidance.
“In Bors, supra, the district court considered whether Bane v. Netlink Inc. remained good law or whether Daimler eliminated consent by registration under Section 5301 as a basis for jurisdiction,” Platt said. “The Bors court reasoned that 'Pennsylvania's statute specifically advises the registrant of the jurisdictional effect of registering to do business[,]' and concluded that '[c]onsent remains a valid form of establishing personal jurisdiction under the Pennsylvania registration statute after Daimler.'”
Judge Anne Lazarus joined Platt's opinion, but Judge Mary Jane Bowes wrote a dissent, arguing that the case “does not involve Pennsylvania in any meaningful way.”
“Appellants, who comprise several plaintiffs from Massachusetts, New York, and Florida, sued Federal Signal Corporation ('appellee'), a Delaware company with its principal place of business in Illinois, for injuries that allegedly occurred in New York. Appellants' pleading failed to establish the grounds for Pennsylvania to exercise personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state appellee. Therefore, I believe that the trial court properly sustained appellee's preliminary objection to the complaint and dismissed the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction,” Bowes said.
Wayne Graver of Lavin, O'Neil, Cedrone & DiSipio, who represents Federal, did not return a call seeking comment. Thomas Joyce of Marc H. Bern & Partners represents the plaintiffs and also did not return a call seeking comment.
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 AllPhiladelphia Bar Association Executive Director Announces Retirement
3 minute readPhila. Jury Hits Sig Sauer With $11M Verdict Over Alleged Gun Defect
3 minute readPhila. Attorney Hit With 5-Year Suspension for Mismanaging Firm and Mishandling Cases
4 minute readTrending 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