503 P.3d 332
N.M.2021Background
- Consolidated interlocutory appeals from four New Mexico personal-injury/wrongful-death actions against large foreign automobile/tire manufacturers that were registered to do business in New Mexico.
- Plaintiffs allege injuries/deaths from vehicle or tire defects; the specific products were not designed or manufactured in New Mexico and were not directly sold to Plaintiffs in New Mexico.
- Each manufacturer had registered under New Mexico’s Business Corporation Act (BCA) and maintained a registered agent for service.
- District courts denied defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the Court of Appeals relied on Werner v. Wal‑Mart to hold registration implied consent to general jurisdiction.
- The New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari, held the BCA does not require consent by registration, overruled Werner, declined to reach constitutional challenges, and remanded to consider specific personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BCA requires a foreign corporation that registers and appoints a registered agent to consent to general personal jurisdiction in New Mexico | Registration under the BCA implies consent to general jurisdiction; Werner controls | BCA does not compel consent by registration; Werner is outmoded and inconsistent with post‑International Shoe jurisprudence | BCA does not require consent by registration; Werner overruled; registration alone does not subject a foreign corp to general jurisdiction |
| Whether consent-by-registration, if read into the BCA, is consistent with due process and Daimler’s “at home” rule | States may condition transacting business on implied consent (Pennsylvania Fire) | Implied consent would violate 14th Amendment and Daimler’s constraint on general jurisdiction | Court declined to decide constitutional arguments, resolving case on statutory construction grounds |
| Whether manufacturers had adequate notice that registration would waive jurisdictional rights | Werner and NM precedent put registrants on notice | BCA lacks clear, unequivocal statutory language of consent; Telephonic requires clear notice for waiver | Court requires clear statutory language for such a waiver; BCA is silent and thus insufficient to supply notice |
| Whether specific personal jurisdiction exists over the manufacturers based on in‑state contacts (marketing/distribution) | Plaintiffs: marketing/distribution of identical products in NM supports case‑linked jurisdiction | Defendants: claims did not arise from NM contacts; specific jurisdiction lacking | Court remanded for the Court of Appeals to decide specific personal jurisdiction issues in each case |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (established relationship‑based minimum‑contacts test for personal jurisdiction)
- Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U.S. 93 (permitted consent‑by‑registration to support general jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (limits on general jurisdiction; focus on defendant’s forum affiliations)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (adopted the “essentially at home” / principal place of business or place of incorporation rule for general jurisdiction)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (clarified specific‑jurisdiction principles; discussed in remand context)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (due process protects defendant’s liberty interest against assertions of state adjudicative authority)
- Werner v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 861 P.2d 270 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993) (New Mexico Court of Appeals holding that BCA registration implied consent; overruled)
- Telephonic, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 543 P.2d 825 (N.M. 1975) (clear, unequivocal statutory or contractual language required to find a defendant waived personal‑jurisdiction rights)