A Virginia resident sued a Virginia company headquartered in Virginia over events that occurred in Virginia. And he filed his lawsuit in…… Pennsylvania. The Court heard argument earlier this week in Mallory v. Norfolk...more
In its upcoming October 2022 Term, the US Supreme Court is set to take up a challenge to how states are permitted to exercise jurisdiction over corporations. Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., No. 21-1168, offers the...more
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear argument on November 8 in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 21-1168, and it appears ready to resolve a longstanding issue that has divided lower courts. That issue is whether it...more
It would not be surprising to find Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. become mandatory class material across law schools in the future. The case presents a thought-provoking discussion of specific and general...more
In B. Bullen et al. v. CohnReznick LLP, investors in a defunct hedge fund sued CohnReznick, the outside auditor and accountant of the fund. The investors claimed, among other things, that CohnReznick had conspired with the...more
On October 18, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) decided Sae Han Sheet Co. v. Eastman Chemical Corp., the latest in a series of cases to examine whether an out-of-state corporation...more
Introduction - On January 26, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) decided Famular v. Whirlpool Corp., a case addressing the circumstances in which an out-of-state corporation may...more
In September, we discussed several new trends in jurisdiction, including an opinion—Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of San Francisco County—in which the California Supreme Court held that hundreds of non-California...more
Federal Circuit Interprets Statutory Requirements for Biosimilar Regulatory Pathway - Amgen Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2015): In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more
Jurisdictional rules are intended to be simple and thereby easy to administer and enforce. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 81, 94-95 (2010) (“[W]e place primary weight upon the need for judicial administration of a...more
The United States Supreme Court turned conventional wisdom on its head about the reach of personal jurisdiction 12 months ago in its unanimous opinion in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014). Personal jurisdiction...more
Following closely on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark personal jurisdiction decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued a decision that further reinforces the...more
A recent Supreme Court opinion in a non-patent case, Daimler AG v. Bauman, likely will have a far-reaching impact on the prevalence of patent declaratory judgment actions. In the past, an accused patent infringer often could...more
With all attention focused on Executive Benefits, the Daimler decision could represent the real sea change in jurisdiction over non-core actions. Introduction - Recently, much of the bankruptcy bar was focused...more
The Supreme Court has issued two decisions that clarify the limitations of general and specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. A defendant corporation will be subject to general jurisdiction in a state only if...more
In Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U. S. ____ (Jan. 14, 2014), the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that general or “all-purpose” jurisdiction can be exercised over foreign corporations only “when their affiliations with the State...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a much anticipated decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman that will not only reverberate through the legal world, but the auto world as well. Large corporations that do business across a wide...more
In Daimler AG v. Bauman, No. 11-965, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 644 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2014) (Ginsburg, J.), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a court may not exercise general personal jurisdiction over a non-U.S. corporation...more
In prior reports, we have covered significant US court decisions addressing personal jurisdiction—the question whether, even if it is clear that certain claims may be raised in a US litigation, a particular individual or...more
The Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman (Jan. 14, 2014), dealing with the topic of “general jurisdiction,” significantly limits a plaintiff’s options as to where to bring a lawsuit. ...more
The U.S. Supreme Court began 2014 by issuing a decision limiting the ability of plaintiffs to assert tort claims against foreign corporations in the U.S. courts based on events occurring outside the United States. In Daimler...more
On January 14, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court in Daimler AG v. Bauman held that Argentinian plaintiffs could not sue a German car manufacturer in California for human rights violations allegedly committed in Argentina. The...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Daimler AG v. Bauman, et al. that due process prevents a court from applying an "agency" theory to exercise general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation based...more
This week marks the first Monday in October, which for Supreme Court watchers is a holiday: the start of a new term. While not everyone gets that excited about the new term, there are several cases that the Court intends to...more