No. A court only has power over a company if that company 'targets' the state. J. McIntyre aimed to sell its products to the whole country, not to New Jersey specifically. Just because they could guess a machine might end up in New Jersey isn't a good enough reason to drag them into a New Jersey court. The idea of a product flowing in a 'stream of commerce' doesn't override the rule that a company has to aim at a state to be sued there.

No. Our past decisions show that you can't sue a company based on just one machine being sold in a state. There's nothing extra here, like ads aimed at New Jersey, to justify it. However, we shouldn't make a big new rule for today's world because this case doesn't involve modern things like selling products on the internet. We're just following the old rules for this specific case.

Yes. This is unfair to Mr. Nicastro. The English company wanted to sell its machines everywhere in the USA, and it used a U.S. seller to do that. It wasn't an accident the machine ended up in New Jersey; it was part of their plan to sell across the country. A foreign company that makes money selling things in the U.S. should have to answer in court when its product hurts someone here.

No, New Jersey can't hear this case because the English company didn't purposefully do business in New Jersey. Even though the company aimed to sell its machines in the U.S. through the Ohio distributor, it didn't target New Jersey buyers specifically. Just because a company could predict its products might end up in a state doesn't mean the state has power over the company. The company's actions have to show it meant to do business in and benefit from the specific state. Here, the English company had no offices, property, workers or ads in New Jersey. The only link was that maybe four machines ended up there. That's not a strong enough tie to say the company purposefully did business in New Jersey.

I disagree. In today's global economy, a foreign company that tries to sell products all over the U.S. should expect to be sued in any state where its products hurt someone. The English company here purposefully tried to reach the whole U.S. market by hiring the Ohio distributor to sell machines nationwide. Since the company tried to profit from the U.S. market as a whole, it's fair to make it come to court in a state where its product caused an injury. The modern approach to jurisdiction should focus on fairness and reasonableness. It doesn't make sense that a company selling products across the U.S. could avoid lawsuits in any state. The plurality's rule is a big step backward from the principles of 'fair play and substantial justice' that are supposed to guide jurisdiction.

I agree New Jersey can't hear this case, but for different reasons than the plurality. The facts don't show a steady stream of sales to New Jersey or specific attempts by the English company to sell in New Jersey. One single sale isn't enough for jurisdiction under our past cases. I wouldn't adopt the plurality's strict rule that jurisdiction is never allowed just because a company could foresee its products being sold in a state through a nationwide distributor. But I also don't agree with the absolute rule the plaintiff argues for, that jurisdiction exists whenever a company knows or should know its products could be sold in any state by a distributor. The Constitution requires minimum contacts and purposeful availment to be fair to the defendant. A rule letting every state sue any manufacturer that sells through national distributors, no matter how small the company or how few products end up in a state, wouldn't be fair. I would stick to our precedents and the limited facts the New Jersey court found.

Yes, a state court can hear this case under these circumstances. In today's global economy, a foreign company that tries to sell products all over the U.S. should expect to be sued in any state where its products hurt someone. The English company here purposefully tried to reach the whole U.S. market by hiring the Ohio distributor to sell machines nationwide. Since the company tried to profit from the U.S. market as a whole, it's fair to make it come to court in a state where its product caused an injury. The modern approach to jurisdiction should focus on fairness and reasonableness. It doesn't make sense that a company selling products across the U.S. could avoid lawsuits in any state. The plurality's rule is a big step backward from the principles of 'fair play and substantial justice' that are supposed to guide jurisdiction.

—specifically whether that decision renders our stream-of-commerce approach to personal jurisdiction improper.

Minimum contacts is based on the notion that "those who live or operate primarily outside a State have a due process right not to be subjected to judgment in its courts as a general matter."

Just a few of the many substantive obstacles to litigating in the federal courts include that the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 in a diversity case, see 28 USC § 1332; that a defendant must have "sufficient contacts" with the forum state such that a court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant "does not offend traditional notions of fair play and …

A defendant corporation is subject to general jurisdiction in the forum state if it is adjudged to be domiciled in that forum.

"As a general rule, the exercise of judicial power is not lawful unless the defendant `purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.'"

In J. McIntyre, the Supreme Court rejected the Supreme Court of New Jersey's holding that a court can exercise limited personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant "so long as the manufacturer knows or reasonably should know that its products are distributed through a nationwide distribution system that might lead to those products being sold in any of the fifty states."

The question is whether a defendant has followed a course of conduct directed at the society or economy existing within the jurisdiction of a given sovereign, so that the sovereign has the power to subject the defendant to judgment concerning that conduct

The defendant's transmission of goods permits the exercise of jurisdiction only where the defendant can be said to have targeted the forum; as a general rule, it is not enough that the defendant might have predicted that its goods will reach the forum State

—recognizing that "contact with and activity directed at a sovereign may justify specific jurisdiction `in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum

Robert Nicastro, who worked in New Jersey, injured his hand while using a metal-shearing machine manufactured by a British company, J. McIntyre.

No. The exercise of judicial power is not lawful unless the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State. Simply placing a product into the stream of commerce with the knowledge that it might reach the forum state is insufficient; the defendant's actions must manifest an intention to submit to the power of that sovereign. J. McIntyre's attendance at trade shows in other states and its use of a national distributor show an intent to serve the U.S. market generally, but not to target New Jersey specifically. The 'stream-of-commerce' metaphor cannot displace the constitutional requirement of purposeful availment directed at the forum state.

No. The outcome is determined by existing precedents, which do not support jurisdiction based on a single, isolated sale within a state, even when accompanied by a national sales effort. The facts do not show a 'regular flow' or 'regular course' of sales in New Jersey, nor is there 'something more' like state-specific advertising or design. Therefore, Nicastro failed to meet his burden of proof under established case law. The court should not announce a broad new rule for or against jurisdiction without a better understanding of modern commercial realities, like internet sales, which are not at issue in this case.

Yes. A foreign manufacturer that seeks to tap the U.S. market as a whole, using a national distributor, purposefully avails itself of the market of all states where its products are sold. The machine did not arrive in New Jersey randomly, but as a result of a distribution system J. McIntyre deliberately arranged to serve customers 'from anywhere in the United States.' It is fair and reasonable to require an international seller to defend its product in the location where that product causes injury, rather than forcing the injured plaintiff to litigate in a foreign country. The plurality's approach turns the clock back to an era before modern long-arm statutes and is disconnected from the realities of global commerce.

No, New Jersey does not have jurisdiction over J. McIntyre because the company did not purposefully avail itself of the New Jersey market. Although J. McIntyre directed marketing and sales efforts at the United States through its distributor, it did not target New Jersey consumers specifically. The stream-of-commerce doctrine does not grant personal jurisdiction to a forum state merely because the manufacturer could foresee that its products might end up there. Rather, the defendant's activities must manifest an intention to submit to the power of the sovereign state. Here, J. McIntyre had no office, property, employees or advertisements in New Jersey. Its only relevant contact was that up to four of its machines ended up in the state. This connection is too attenuated to establish that J. McIntyre purposefully availed itself of the benefits of conducting business in New Jersey.

I dissent. In today's global economy, a foreign manufacturer that seeks to exploit a multistate or global market should reasonably expect to be subject to suit in any state where its products cause injury. J. McIntyre purposefully availed itself of the entire U.S. market by engaging a U.S. distributor to sell its machines nationwide. Given McIntyre's endeavors to reach and profit from the United States market as a whole, it is fair and reasonable to subject it to jurisdiction in a state where its products cause injury. The modern approach to jurisdiction, grounded in considerations of reason and fairness, should not lead to the inconceivable result that a manufacturer selling its products across the USA may evade jurisdiction in any and all states. The plurality's rule would take a giant step backward from the 'notions of fair play and substantial justice' underlying International Shoe.

I agree with the plurality's conclusion that jurisdiction is lacking here, but not its reasoning. The facts show no regular flow of sales to New Jersey customers and no specific effort by the British manufacturer to sell in New Jersey. A single isolated sale is insufficient for jurisdiction under our precedents. I would not adopt the plurality's strict rule against jurisdiction based on the mere foreseeability that a defendant's products might be sold in a state through a nationwide distribution system. But I also do not agree with the absolute rule urged by the plaintiff that jurisdiction exists wherever a manufacturer knows or should know its products might be sold through a nationwide distributor. The constitutional demand for minimum contacts and purposeful availment rests upon defendant-focused fairness, and is not satisfied by a rule that would permit every state to assert jurisdiction against any manufacturer selling through a national distributor, no matter how small the manufacturer or how few its products end up in a particular state. I would adhere to our precedents and the limited facts found by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

No, a state court does not have jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer under the stream-of-commerce doctrine when the manufacturer sells its products through a distributor who might sell those products in any of the fifty states, unless the manufacturer specifically targets the forum state. In this case, New Jersey does not have jurisdiction over J. McIntyre because the company did not purposefully avail itself of the New Jersey market. Although J. McIntyre directed marketing and sales efforts at the United States through its distributor, it did not target New Jersey consumers specifically. The stream-of-commerce doctrine does not grant personal jurisdiction to a forum state merely because the manufacturer could foresee that its products might end up there. Rather, the defendant's activities must manifest an intention to submit to the power of the sovereign state. Here, J. McIntyre had no office, property, employees or advertisements in New Jersey. Its only relevant contact was that up to four of its machines ended up in the state. This connection is too attenuated to establish that J. McIntyre purposefully availed itself of the benefits of conducting business in New Jersey.

J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot