The Trial Lawyer Winter 2018 - Page 34

state. Defendants like to gloss over or entirely omit these critical factual distinctions while extracting general quotes and platitudes from the case in support of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Next, SCOTUS handed down its decision in J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011) on the same day it issued Goodyear. And much like Goodyear, J. McIntyre also involved an attenuated set of jurisdictional facts. Specifically, the plaintiff in that case was injured by a metal-shearing machine manufactured by an English company. Id. at 878. The case was filed 32 x The Trial Lawyer in New Jersey. Id. The English company, however, had never advertised in New Jersey, did not maintain an office in New Jersey, and had, at most, sold just four machines which wound up in New Jersey. Id. Under those facts, Justice Kennedy authored a plurality opinion finding that the defendant lacked the type of “purposeful availment” needed to subject it to specific jurisdiction under Justice O’Connor’s “stream of commerce plus” test. Id. at 883-85. J. McIntyre has limited applicability to most products liability cases. First, the facts in that case are extremely attenuated. The four metal-shearing machines sold in New Jersey pale in comparison to the mass marketed products sold in most cases. Second, as a legal matter, J. McIntyre again commanded no majority opinion; as such, the prior law on stream-of- commerce jurisdiction remains intact following that decision. Subsequently, in January 2014, SCOTUS decided Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014). Daimler was an action brought by Argentinian nationals in the Northern District of California against Daimler, a German corporation. The plaintiffs alleged that Daimler was involved in a “Dirty War”