Dow Chemical Canada ULC v. Superior Court
134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 597
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Fandino and eight California residents were injured by a 1996 Sea-Doo explosion on the California side of Lake Havasu; Dow Canadian entity sued for product liability.
- Dow Chemical Canada ULC had no California contacts: no California advertising, sales, office, qualification to do business, or agent for service; manufactured gas tanks in Canada and sold to Bombardier in Canada.
- Dow contended lack of minimum contacts; argued that mere knowledge that components would be used in U.S. markets is insufficient for jurisdiction.
- Los Angeles Superior Court relied on Bombardier testimony that Sea-Doos incorporating Dow components would be sold in the U.S., including California, to find purposeful availment.
- Dow sought writ of mandate; California appellate and Supreme Court proceedings followed, culminating in a remand after McIntyre was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Court held Dow is not subject to California jurisdiction because it did not engage in conduct directed at California.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does stream-of-commerce with knowledge suffice for jurisdiction? | Dow knowingly supplied parts for products sold in California. | Placement in stream of commerce alone cannot establish jurisdiction without targeted conduct. | Not sufficient; needs purposeful availment via forum-directed conduct. |
| Is there sufficient minimum contacts to justify California jurisdiction over Dow? | Dow should be subject due to end-product market in California. | Dow had no forum-specific activity or presence in California. | No; no purposeful availment or forum-directed conduct. |
| What standard governs jurisdiction after McIntyre v. Nicastro? | Stream-of-commerce plus or related reasoning supports jurisdiction. | McIntyre requires purposeful availment with respect to the forum state, not mere market exposure. | McIntyre requires purposeful availment; here none. |
Key Cases Cited
- Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1987) (stream-of-commerce alone insufficient for jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (minimum contacts and purposeful availment framework)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (foundation of due process for jurisdiction)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1958) (purposeful availment required)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (foreseeability not enough for jurisdiction)
- McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220 (U.S. 1957) (jurisdiction arises from direct dealings and contacts)
- J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (U.S. 2011) (purposeful availment required; single market targeting not enough for forum)