As the United States Supreme Court again considers the issue of where corporations can be subject to personal jurisdiction, one question arising at oral argument seemed to suggest that if the company didn't want to be sued in that state, it shouldn't do any business there. But can that be right?
The touchstone of recent Supreme Court decisions on personal jurisdiction over corporations (which, by and large, have restricted prior jurisdictional regimes) seems to be a higher standard for connection between the company and the lawsuit. The Supreme Court has required a high bar of "continuous and systematic" contacts to suffice for general personal jurisdiction, and, for specific personal jurisdiction, requiring sufficient connection between the plaintiff's claims and the defendant's activities in that state. That is a very different inquiry than merely asking whether a corporation is registered to do business in that state (as many companies are in most, if not all, states) and finding that sufficient for jurisdiction, without regard to the plaintiff's claims, or as in the case the Court is considering, having a state require consent to jurisdiction as a condition of registration. It will be interesting to see the Court's decision next Spring.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.