Commentary
“Built for the Road Ahead”: The Supreme Court Recalibrates Personal-Jurisdiction Doctrine in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court By Jeremy L. Kahn
Jeremy L. Kahn is a partner at León Cosgrove and is focused on commercial litigation. ©2021 Jeremy L. Kahn. All rights reserved.
The Supreme Court recently decided Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court,1 which was the major personal jurisdiction decision on the Court’s docket this term. The decision upsets the prevailing case law in many circuits that an out-of-state defendant’s forum-state contacts can give rise to specific personal jurisdiction only if they have a causal connection with the plaintiff ’s claim. The Court held that, at least in some instances, a defendant’s contacts with a state can give rise to specific personal jurisdiction when they “relate to” a plaintiff ’s claims, even if a causal connection is lacking. As the Court’s personal-jurisdiction decisions over the past decade have trended toward restricting personal jurisdiction, the expansion of personal jurisdiction in Ford suggests a recalibration of personal-jurisdiction doctrine. In Ford, the Court considered two cases—one originating in Montana state court and one originating in Minnesota state court—in which an allegedly defective Ford car injured a resident of the respective state in that state. However, the vehicles involved in the car accidents were originally sold in different states. And they also were neither designed nor manufactured in the states where the plaintiffs brought each action. Ford argued that the states where each action was brought lacked personal jurisdiction because Ford did not engage in any conduct in those states that had a causal connection with the plaintiffs’ claims, such as designing, manufacturing, or selling the cars involved in the car accidents in those states. The Court rejected Ford’s “causation-only” approach to minimum contacts. Rejecting the argument that “a strict causal relationship between the defendant’s in-state activity and the litigation” is necessary for specific personal jurisdiction, the Court noted that its precedents refer to the requirement as being that a plaintiff ’s claims “arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.”2 Accord-
ing to the majority, the use of the disjunctive “or” in prior statements of the rule made it clear “that some relationships will support jurisdiction without a causal showing.”3 As applied to these specific cases, Ford was subject to specific personal jurisdiction even if its forum-state contacts lacked a causal relationship with the plaintiffs’ claims because those contacts were still “related” to the claims. The Court explained that Ford “serves a market” for its vehicles in Montana and Minnesota by marketing its vehicles (including the models at issue) in those states and making those vehicles available for sale at dozens of dealerships in those states. The Court also highlighted how Ford “works hard to foster ongoing connections to its cars’ owners” by distributing replacement parts to its own dealers and independent auto shops in the two states, “making it easier to own a Ford” and thus “encourag[ing] Montanans and Minnesotans to become lifelong Ford drivers.”4 The relationship between these activities and the specific lawsuits were “close enough” to satisfy the “relate to” prong of the rule, even absent a causal connection.5 Distilled, “serving the state markets[s]” by advertising, selling, and servicing the same car models involved in the accidents, which then malfunctioned and caused injuries in those states, sufficed to establish specific personal jurisdiction. This was so regardless of whether Ford advertised, sold, or serviced the specific vehicles at issue in the forum states and regardless of whether the injured drivers made their out-of-state purchases of the vehicles based on Ford’s forum-state advertising or other activities. Ford has important implications. Most immediately, the Court’s rejection of the “causation-only” approach and recognition of a separate “relates to” path for demonstrating minimum contacts undermines the case law of several circuits. Many circuits previously held that the “arise out of or relate to” formulation July/August 2021 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • 23
