– The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided on the scope of personal jurisdiction, which could impact how states legislate long-arm jurisdiction over out-of-state corporate entities.
– The Court held that Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute, which requires foreign corporations to consent to jurisdiction as a condition of doing business in the state, does not violate the Due Process Clause.
– The case involved a Virginia resident, Robert Mallory, who sued his former employer, Norfolk Southern, in Pennsylvania, alleging exposure to toxic chemicals during his employment. He claimed that because Norfolk Southern had registered to do business in Pennsylvania, the state’s long-arm statute brought the company within the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania courts. 1. Norfolk Southern argued it should not be subject to suit in Pennsylvania due to being incorporated in and headquartered in Virginia.
2. Pennsylvania’s statute requiring consent to jurisdiction for foreign corporations was found to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.
3. The Court’s decision may lead to broader personal jurisdiction over out-of-state entities, with little room for due process concerns. 1. The majority opinion in the case found that Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute does not violate the Due Process Clause.
2. Justice Alito’s concurrence suggested that the statute may violate the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
3. This question was left unresolved by the Supreme Court, and it may be raised in future cases.
4. The impact of the decision on foreign corporations operating in Florida is uncertain.
5. It is unclear if the decision will significantly change the jurisdictional analysis for out-of-state corporations in Florida. – Florida’s long-arm statute does not require a business to consent to jurisdiction like Pennsylvania’s.
– Florida’s statute on foreign corporate registration does not determine the contacts or activities that may subject a foreign corporation to service of process, taxation, or regulation.
– There is no judicial precedent in Florida that interprets the long-arm statute broadly enough to invoke general jurisdiction simply as a result of registering to do business in the state.
– The Supreme Court of Georgia found that foreign corporate registration was adequate to support general jurisdiction, contrary to the situation in Florida.
– The Supreme Court of Florida established a two-part test for determining personal jurisdiction over non-residents under Florida’s long-arm statute in the Venetian Salami case. – Norfolk Southern may raise a dormant Commerce Clause defense on remand in the Mallory case.
– State legislatures may seek to change their long-arm statutes in response to Mallory, either to compel corporate consent to jurisdiction or to appear more business-friendly.
– Foreign corporations registered to do business in Florida may not see a significant change in the analysis under Florida’s long-arm statute due to Mallory, but should consult legal counsel for specific concerns.
https://www.rumberger.com/insights/u-s-supreme-court-decides-major-personal-jurisdiction-case-impact-in-florida-remains-to-be-seen/
Leave a Reply