McINTYRE v. NICASTRO (CivPro PJ Stream of Commerce) Forum

[brickman]

Did anyone else do this case? Kennedy, Breyer, & Ginsburg opinion are killing me.

Would appreciate a discussion.

[JusticeHarlan]

Use the search function. You get stuff like this.

[ph14]

Did anyone else do this case? Kennedy, Breyer, & Ginsburg opinion are killing me.

Would appreciate a discussion.

I did as well, it seems kind of confusing. McIntyre plurality said that no PJ because they didn't avail themselves of NJ specifically but just of the US as a whole? So they can't be sued in the United States basically and have to be sued where they came from? And the dissent disagrees and said they did avail themselves of NJ.

[071816]

NiCastro didn't really add anything definitive to the Asahi mess because of the pluralities in both cases.

The way I understood the various NiCastro opinions:

No Personal Jurisdiction
-Kennedy plurality: contacts with the entire U.S. are not enough to confer personal jurisdiction. D was not "seeking to serve a given state’s market."
-Breyer concurrence: a single sale in a given state is not enough to confer PJ in that state. Hints at how P could have presented evidence to show that D was targeting NJ, but did not. Declines to adopt a broad "submission" rule.

Personal Jurisdiction
-Ginsburg dissent: emphasizes that due process, not state sovereignty, is at issue when determining PJ. Since national contacts are increasingly common, PJ over the defendant was proper here.