CMMC v. Salinas
929 S.W.2d 435, 1996 WL 391171 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause prevents a state court from asserting personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer merely because the manufacturer knew its product would be shipped to that state; instead, the manufacturer must have purposefully directed its activities toward the forum state.
Facts:
- Hill Country Cellars, a small winery located in Cedar Park, Texas, ordered a winepress from KLR Machines, Incorporated, an independent distributor.
- KLR, in turn, ordered the winepress for Hill Country Cellars from CMMC, a French manufacturer, instructing CMMC to wire the press for electrical use in the United States and arrange for it to be shipped FOB the port of Houston.
- CMMC complied with KLR's instructions and thus knew that the destination of the press was Texas.
- Hill Country Cellars took title to the winepress in Houston and paid for its transportation to the winery.
- Ambrocio Salinas, an employee of Hill Country Cellars, injured his arm while cleaning the press.
- CMMC, a French corporation, primarily sells wine production equipment in Europe, does not directly market or advertise in the United States (other than providing promotional materials to KLR), and has no contractual arrangement with KLR, employees, or a place of business in Texas, though it had made isolated sales, including one other direct sale to a Texas winery.
- KLR, a New York corporation with offices in California and New York, had made only three or four equipment sales in Texas in the ten years preceding this case and primarily directed its marketing efforts toward California, although it advertised in nationally circulated wine industry magazines.
Procedural Posture:
- Ambrocio Salinas filed a lawsuit against CMMC in a Texas district court (the trial court), asserting strict product liability and negligence claims.
- The district court sustained CMMC’s special appearance (a motion challenging jurisdiction) and dismissed the case for want of personal jurisdiction.
- Salinas appealed the district court's dismissal to the Texas Court of Appeals, as appellant and CMMC as appellee.
- The court of appeals reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case, holding that a Texas court could assert personal jurisdiction over CMMC based solely on CMMC’s knowledge that the winepress would be shipped to Texas.
- CMMC then appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas, as appellant and Salinas as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause allow a state court to assert personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer based solely on the manufacturer's knowledge that its product would eventually be shipped to that state?
Opinions:
Majority - Hecht, Justice
No, the Fourteenth Amendment does not permit a state court to take personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer merely because it knew its allegedly defective product would be shipped to that state. A state court can only exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant if there are minimum, purposeful contacts with the state, and the exercise of jurisdiction adheres to traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, as established by United States Supreme Court precedent like International Shoe Co. v. Washington and World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson. The "stream-of-commerce" doctrine requires more than mere awareness that a product might enter the forum state; it demands "additional conduct of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State," as outlined by Justice O'Connor's plurality in Asahi Metal Indus. v. Superior Court. CMMC's contacts with Texas were limited to isolated sales and its knowledge that the specific winepress would be shipped there, which the Court deemed insufficient. There was no evidence CMMC designed products for Texas, made efforts to market there, or otherwise purposefully availed itself of the Texas market. Even Justice Brennan's less stringent "stream of commerce" view in Asahi required a "regular and anticipated flow of products," which was absent here, as the Court noted there was "scarcely a dribble" of products from CMMC to Texas. The Court concluded that CMMC's contacts were "random, fortuitous, or attenuated" and that it would be unfair to compel a foreign manufacturer to litigate in every place its products might end up without more purposeful engagement with the forum state.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the Texas Supreme Court's application of the 'stream-of-commerce' doctrine for specific personal jurisdiction, aligning the state with Justice O'Connor's 'stream of commerce plus' approach from Asahi. By requiring 'additional conduct' beyond mere knowledge of a product's destination, the ruling establishes a higher threshold for asserting jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers. This provides greater predictability and protection for companies whose products may passively enter a state, reducing the likelihood of being 'haled into court' without a clear intent to serve that market. It underscores the importance of purposeful availment as a cornerstone of due process in personal jurisdiction cases, particularly those involving international defendants.
