Insights

Washington, D.C. – July 17, 2023: Crowell & Moring hosted its 24thannual George Bailey Public Service Awards ceremony. Named after the hero of the classic movie, “It’s a Wonderful Life,” these awards recognize the firm’s lawyers and staff who have made a substantial impact on the lives of others.

Can a state court, consistent with the Due Process Clause, compel a foreign corporation seeking to do business in the state to consent to general (“all-purpose”) personal jurisdiction?  Until its decision this week in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.,[1] the majority of courts forecast that the Supreme Court would answer that question with a resounding “no.”  Instead, five Justices in Mallory agreed that Pennsylvania’s business registration statute, which requires foreign corporations to consent to the state’s personal jurisdiction over “any cause of action” brought against them in state court, did not violate the Due Process Clause.[2] The decision is sure to encourage forum shopping and perhaps lead other states to adopt similar “consent-by-registration” statutes.

In its seventh decision on personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants in the past decade, the United States Supreme Court yesterday ruled 8-01 that due process does not require a strict causal link between the defendant’s in-forum conduct and the plaintiff’s injury. Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court et al., No. 19-368 (March 25, 2021). Writing for the Court, and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kavanaugh, Justice Kagan held: “When a company like Ford serves a market for a product in a State and that product causes injury in the State to one of its residents, the State’s courts may entertain the resulting suit.”2 The suit need only “arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.”3 Reviewing the Court’s personal jurisdiction decisions since International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), Justice Kagan emphasized that the decision was consistent with precedent, including Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), and announced no new test of specific jurisdiction.

Can a federal court, after Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California,1 still exercise specific jurisdiction over a nationwide class action? Trial courts have debated the question for nearly three years. Last week, two federal circuits became the first appellate courts to decide. One held that a federal court can do so; the other, that the question is premature until the class is certified. At stake is the viability of nationwide or multi-state class actions in a forum where the defendant is not “at home” for purposes of general jurisdiction.

The MCCA's Creating Pathways to Diversity conference is designed to provide the practical tools and resources that attorneys, both in-house and at outside law firms, need to further personal career growth and meet organizational diversity goals. Conference highlights include luncheon programs updating initiatives stemming from the April, 2008 Call to Action General Counsels’ Diversity Summit, and the 2009 summit on women in the profession convened by the Center for Women in Law at the University of Texas School of Law.

The 10th anniversary DuPont Minority Counsel Conference (MCC) will take place in Wilmington, Delaware on June 25-27. The MCC is an annual event that brings together lawyers and other professionals of color at DuPont and its Primary Law Firms and Service Providers to network, hear from distinguished speakers, and participate in substantive workshops.