Deleon v. BNSF Ry. Co.
426 P.3d 1
Mont.2018Background
- Three plaintiffs (DeLeon, Kingery, Beck) sued BNSF in Montana state court under the Federal Employers' Liability Act for injuries that occurred outside Montana.
- BNSF is incorporated in Delaware, has its principal place of business in Texas, and conducts substantial operations in Montana (2,061 miles of track; ~2,100 employees) but generates <10% of revenue there.
- To do business in Montana, BNSF obtained a certificate of authority and appointed a Montana registered agent for service of process.
- The district court dismissed the suits for lack of personal jurisdiction after BNSF moved under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2); plaintiffs appealed.
- Plaintiffs’ central claim: BNSF’s registration plus in‑state business constitutes consent to general (all‑purpose) personal jurisdiction in Montana.
- Montana statutes explicitly state appointment of a registered agent "does not by itself create the basis for personal jurisdiction," and plaintiffs’ claims did not arise from BNSF’s Montana activities (no specific jurisdiction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether registration + conducting business in Montana equals consent to general personal jurisdiction | Registration to do business and appointment of a registered agent, combined with in‑state operations, constitutes consent to general jurisdiction | Registration statutes only facilitate service; appointment of an agent and doing business do not waive due process or create general jurisdiction | No — registration plus in‑state business does not constitute consent to general jurisdiction |
| Whether BNSF is "essentially at home" in Montana for general jurisdiction | Plaintiffs: BNSF’s extensive Montana operations make it at home there | BNSF: incorporated in DE, principal place in TX; Montana contacts not continuous/systematic enough | No — BNSF is not essentially at home in Montana; general jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether Montana has specific jurisdiction over BNSF for these claims | Plaintiffs: registering and doing business creates sufficient forum connection | BNSF: plaintiffs’ injuries arose outside Montana; suit‑related conduct lacks substantial connection to Montana | No — specific jurisdiction lacking because claims do not arise from Montana contacts |
| Whether BNSF is estopped from denying jurisdiction because of past litigations or plaintiffs’ litigation costs | Plaintiffs: prior consents/behavior and expenditure of resources justify estoppel | BNSF: may choose to waive jurisdiction in particular cases; past waivers do not bind it here; estoppel cannot override due process limits | No — estoppel not available to force registration‑based general jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 581 U.S. _ (2017) (limits on general jurisdiction over corporations)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction only where corporation is "essentially at home")
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (clarifies all‑purpose jurisdiction standard)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (contacts‑based personal jurisdiction framework)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (specific jurisdiction requires defendant’s suit‑related conduct to create forum connection)
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (distinguishes notice/service from jurisdictional basis)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (forum‑selection and consent principles)
- Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878) (historical territorial approach to jurisdiction)
- Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U.S. 165 (1939) (pre‑International Shoe case finding agent appointment could imply consent)
- Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. v. Gold Issue Min. & Mill. Co., 243 U.S. 93 (1917) (pre‑International Shoe case on statutory agent and consent)
- Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952) (authoritative example of appropriate exercise of general jurisdiction)
- King v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 632 F.3d 570 (9th Cir. 2011) (discusses limits of agent appointment and doing business for jurisdictional purposes)