Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 2011

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown

131 S. Ct. 2846 | 180 L. Ed. 2d 796 | 564 U.S. 915 | 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4801 | 2011 D.A.R. 9436 | 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 1305 | 79 U.S.L.W. 4696

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case sharply distinguishes specific from general jurisdiction: indirect sales into a State do not make a foreign corporation “at home” there or subject it to suit on unrelated claims.

Background

Two North Carolina teenagers died when a bus overturned outside Paris, France. Their parents brought a wrongful-death action in North Carolina state court, alleging that a defective tire caused the crash. They sued Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, an Ohio corporation, and three indirect foreign subsidiaries incorporated and operating in Luxembourg, Turkey, and France.

The foreign subsidiaries manufactured tires primarily for European and Asian markets. They were not registered to do business in North Carolina; had no offices, employees, bank accounts, manufacturing, advertising, solicitation, or direct sales there; and did not themselves ship tires to North Carolina. Some of their tires nevertheless reached North Carolina through other Goodyear affiliates' distribution network. The allegedly defective tire was made in Turkey, and neither it nor that tire model had been distributed in North Carolina.

The subsidiaries moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The North Carolina Court of Appeals acknowledged that the claims neither arose from nor related to the subsidiaries' North Carolina contacts, so specific jurisdiction was unavailable. But it held that general jurisdiction existed because the subsidiaries placed tires into the stream of commerce without limiting their sale in North Carolina. The North Carolina Supreme Court denied review, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether North Carolina could exercise general personal jurisdiction over foreign Goodyear subsidiaries on claims unrelated to the subsidiaries' activities in North Carolina.

Holding

No. The subsidiaries' limited and indirect connections to North Carolina did not render them essentially at home there and therefore could not support general jurisdiction.

Reasoning

The Due Process Clause permits a court to exercise general, or all-purpose, jurisdiction over a corporation only when its affiliations with the forum are so continuous and systematic that the corporation is fairly regarded as at home in that State. General jurisdiction differs from specific jurisdiction because it permits suit on claims unrelated to the defendant's forum contacts.

Specific jurisdiction was plainly unavailable. The allegedly defective tire was manufactured abroad, sold abroad, and involved in an accident in France. Because the episode giving rise to the lawsuit had no meaningful connection to North Carolina, the parents could not rely on the subsidiaries' forum contacts to establish case-linked jurisdiction.

The Court rejected the North Carolina court's use of the stream-of-commerce theory to establish general jurisdiction. The fact that a manufacturer's products reach a State can help establish specific jurisdiction when the product causes the injury there and the claim is connected to the defendant's effort to serve that market. It does not, however, make the manufacturer answerable in that State for every unrelated claim.

The subsidiaries' contacts fell well short of the standard illustrated by Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. In Perkins, Ohio was the Philippine corporation's temporary principal place of business during wartime because its president ran the company's affairs, kept its files, and supervised its operations from Ohio. By contrast, the Goodyear subsidiaries had no comparable operational base or corporate home in North Carolina.

Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall also showed why jurisdiction was lacking. There, even substantial purchases, training, and contract-related contacts in Texas did not establish general jurisdiction over a Colombian corporation. Sporadic sales of the subsidiaries' tires in North Carolina through intermediaries were no more sufficient.

Accepting the parents' theory would expose any substantial manufacturer or seller to suit on any claim wherever its products happen to be distributed. Due process does not allow a product's circulation through a distribution network to convert every destination State into the corporation's all-purpose forum.

North Carolina's interest in providing its residents a forum did not alter the analysis. General jurisdiction depends on the defendant's relationship to the forum, not the plaintiff's residence or the plaintiff's desire for a convenient forum.

Issue #2

Whether the Court should treat Goodyear USA and its foreign subsidiaries as a single enterprise and aggregate their North Carolina contacts for jurisdictional purposes.

Holding

The Court did not reach that argument because the parents forfeited it by failing to properly raise it below or in opposition to certiorari.

Reasoning

The parents argued belatedly that the foreign subsidiaries' contacts should be combined with the North Carolina activities of Goodyear USA and other affiliated entities. In substance, that theory would require disregarding the subsidiaries' separate corporate identities for jurisdictional purposes.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals had treated the subsidiaries as separate corporations, and the parents had not timely pressed a theory of veil piercing or a unitary enterprise. Because the contention was not properly preserved, the Court declined to decide whether aggregation of corporate contacts could ever be justified on these facts.