Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 2011

J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro

131 S. Ct. 2780 | 180 L. Ed. 2d 765 | 564 U.S. 873 | 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4800

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 rejected jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer on this sparse record, but the fractured decision left no majority rule on when nationwide marketing creates State-specific personal jurisdiction.

Background

Robert Nicastro lost four fingers while operating a metal-shearing machine at his New Jersey workplace. The machine was made in England by J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd., a British company. McIntyre used an independent U.S. distributor to sell its machines nationwide and sent representatives to scrap-recycling trade shows in several States, though never in New Jersey. The record showed that no more than four McIntyre machines—and likely only the machine at issue—reached New Jersey.

Nicastro brought a products-liability action in New Jersey state court. McIntyre had no New Jersey office, property, employees, advertising, tax payments, or direct shipments to the State. The New Jersey Supreme Court nevertheless held that jurisdiction was proper because McIntyre knew or reasonably should have known that its products were distributed through a nationwide system that could lead to sales in any State, and it had not taken steps to prevent sales in New Jersey. The Supreme Court reversed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether New Jersey could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over McIntyre based on its use of a nationwide distributor, its attendance at out-of-state trade shows, and the arrival of one or a few machines in New Jersey.

Holding

No. The judgment was reversed because the record did not establish constitutionally sufficient contacts between McIntyre and New Jersey.

Reasoning

Justice Kennedy's plurality began from the rule that due process permits a State to exercise judicial power over an out-of-state defendant only when the defendant has purposefully availed itself of conducting activities in that State. The key inquiry is defendant-focused: whether the defendant's conduct manifests an intent to invoke or benefit from the forum State's laws, not simply whether litigation there would seem fair or foreseeable.

McIntyre's conduct showed an effort to serve the United States market generally, but not New Jersey in particular. It had an independent distributor for U.S. sales and attended trade shows in other States, yet it neither advertised in New Jersey nor sent employees, goods, or sales efforts there. It had no office, property, taxes, or other business presence in the State.

The isolated arrival of the machine that injured Nicastro could not itself establish jurisdiction. The machine's presence in New Jersey did not show that McIntyre had purposefully directed conduct toward New Jersey, particularly because the distributor was independent and the record did not show a regular flow of sales into the State.

New Jersey's substantial interest in protecting residents from defective products could not supply judicial authority where McIntyre lacked the necessary forum-directed conduct. Due process protects the defendant's liberty interest in not being subjected to a State's coercive judicial power without a lawful basis.

Issue #2

Whether a foreign manufacturer that targets the United States market as a whole is automatically subject to personal jurisdiction in every State where its product is sold or causes injury.

Holding

No controlling majority rule resolved that broader question. Justice Kennedy's four-Justice plurality rejected nationwide targeting and mere foreseeability as sufficient, while Justice Breyer's concurrence declined to adopt a broad new rule and rested only on the inadequate facts of this case.

Reasoning

The Kennedy plurality rejected the New Jersey Supreme Court's expansive stream-of-commerce theory. In the plurality's view, placing goods into commerce with the expectation that they may reach a forum does not replace the requirement of purposeful availment. A manufacturer may be sued without physically entering a State, but only when it has targeted that particular State's market.

The plurality aligned itself with Justice O'Connor's Asahi view that placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without more, is not conduct purposefully directed at a forum. It rejected Justice Brennan's Asahi approach insofar as it would treat awareness and foreseeability of sales in the forum as enough to support jurisdiction.

The plurality also stressed that personal jurisdiction is assessed sovereign by sovereign. A defendant's purposeful relationship with the United States as a whole does not necessarily establish a relationship with any particular State. The plurality noted, without deciding, that Congress might be able to authorize federal-court jurisdiction in circumstances where no State court could exercise jurisdiction.

Because Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Alito, concurred only in the judgment and expressly refused to endorse the plurality's broader formulation, the case did not produce a majority rule definitively settling how purposeful availment applies to modern nationwide or online commerce.

Concurrences

Justice Breyer

Reasoning

Justice Breyer agreed that New Jersey lacked jurisdiction, but he reached that result narrowly under existing precedent. Nicastro bore the burden to establish jurisdiction, and the stated record showed only an isolated New Jersey sale, no regular flow or regular course of sales into New Jersey, and no State-specific design, advertising, marketing, advice, or other additional conduct by McIntyre.

He read World-Wide Volkswagen and the separate Asahi opinions to indicate that one isolated sale, even alongside general U.S. sales efforts, is insufficient. McIntyre had not purposefully availed itself of New Jersey, nor had Nicastro shown that McIntyre placed goods into commerce with the expectation that New Jersey consumers would purchase them.

Justice Breyer refused to join the plurality's potentially strict requirement that a defendant intend to submit to, or specifically target, a particular sovereign. He cautioned that the plurality's language could have uncertain consequences for modern commercial arrangements, including Internet sales, sales fulfilled by intermediaries such as Amazon, and targeted online advertising.

He also rejected New Jersey's rule that any manufacturer using a nationwide distribution system is subject to suit in every State. That approach would effectively allow jurisdiction based on the location of an accident and could expose even small domestic or foreign producers to litigation everywhere a distributor made an isolated sale. In his view, a better factual record and fuller consideration of contemporary commerce were needed before altering jurisdictional doctrine.

Dissents

Justice Ginsburg

Reasoning

Justice Ginsburg concluded that McIntyre purposefully availed itself of the U.S. market, including New Jersey, by appointing an exclusive U.S. distributor, regularly exhibiting at nationwide trade shows, and seeking to sell its machines to buyers anywhere in the United States. The machine reached Nicastro's New Jersey workplace through the very national distribution arrangement McIntyre deliberately created, not through a random or unilateral act of a consumer.

In the dissent's view, International Shoe requires attention to the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation, rather than an inquiry framed principally around the defendant's consent to sovereign authority. A manufacturer that deliberately seeks a national market should reasonably answer in the State where its product is sold and causes injury, particularly when that State is the injured user's home and workplace.

Justice Ginsburg distinguished World-Wide Volkswagen because the dealer and distributor there served only a limited regional market and did nothing to target Oklahoma. She distinguished Asahi because it involved a foreign indemnity dispute between a Taiwanese component maker and a Japanese component maker over a transaction abroad, not an injured local user suing a manufacturer that actively cultivated the U.S. market.

The dissent emphasized practical fairness. New Jersey had a strong interest in an industrial accident occurring there, and it was far more sensible to require a foreign manufacturer that sought U.S. profits to defend in New Jersey than to require an injured New Jersey worker to litigate in England. The dissent warned that the plurality's approach would let foreign manufacturers insulate themselves from suit by using independent national distributors.