As we have noted for reader, lower courts continue to work to interpret and apply the Supreme Court's decision in J. McIntyre Machinery Ltd. v. Nicastro. Earlier this week, a California appeals court found that the lower court should not have exercised personal jurisdiction over a Canadian unit of Dow Chemical Co. See Dow Chemical Canada ULC v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. B222609 Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist.) (unpubl.).
The court noted that this case presented a question left open in Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987), but now resolved by J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S.Ct. 2780 (2011): whether merely placing products into the stream of commerce in a foreign country (or another state), aware that some may or will be swept into the forum state, is enough to subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction—or whether due process requires that the defendant have engaged in additional conduct, directed at the forum, before it can be found to have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state. The court concluded that defendant Dow Chemical Canada ULC was not subject to jurisdiction because it did not purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state.
Please see full publication below for more information.