169 A.D.3d 137
N.Y. App. Div.2019Background
- Multi‑vehicle accident in Virginia killed three passengers and injured three; plaintiffs sued Ford and Goodyear (among others) for defective vehicle/tire design and manufacture.
- Ford is incorporated in Delaware (PPB Michigan); Goodyear is incorporated and PPB in Ohio. Neither is incorporated or principally based in New York.
- Plaintiffs alleged both defendants were registered to do business in New York, operated facilities and dealerships/service outlets in New York, and derived substantial revenue here.
- Ford and Goodyear moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (CPLR 3211(a)(8)); the trial court denied the motions, finding general jurisdiction based on continuous/systematic contacts and consent via business registration/appointment of Secretary of State as agent.
- Appellate court considered whether post‑Daimler a foreign corporation’s registration/agent designation in New York constitutes consent to general jurisdiction and whether defendants are “at home” in New York.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New York courts have general jurisdiction over Ford and Goodyear | Each company’s continuous, systematic New York business (plants, dealerships, employees, revenue, long history) makes them "at home" here | Contacts are nationwide/global; New York activity is not commensurate with incorporation/PPB so not "at home" here | No — contacts viewed in global context are insufficient to render either at home in NY under Daimler |
| Whether registration to do business and designation of Secretary of State as agent constitutes consent to general jurisdiction | Registration and agent appointment constitute consent to be sued in NY for any claim (historic Bagdon/Tauza line) | Daimler altered the jurisprudence; mere registration/agent appointment cannot supply consent to general jurisdiction for unrelated claims | No — post‑Daimler, compliance with NY business registration statutes does not constitute consent to general jurisdiction for claims unrelated to NY contacts |
| Whether further jurisdictional discovery was warranted | Plaintiffs argued additional facts might show jurisdiction | Defendants argued plaintiffs failed to allege facts suggesting discovery would yield jurisdictional proof | Denied — plaintiffs did not identify plausible facts that further discovery would produce to establish jurisdiction |
| Ultimate procedural result | N/A | N/A | Motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction granted as to Ford and Goodyear; trial court orders reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (limits general jurisdiction; corporate "at home" normally only in state of incorporation or principal place of business)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (distinguishes general and specific jurisdiction; general jurisdiction requires affiliations so continuous and systematic as to render defendant essentially at home)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (established minimum contacts/fair play test for personal jurisdiction)
- Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (example of exceptional case where forum was corporation’s temporary principal place of business)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (reiterates that in‑state business alone does not permit general jurisdiction over unrelated claims)
- Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (historical backdrop: territorial limits on in personam jurisdiction referenced in opinion)