384 F. Supp. 3d 532
E.D. Pa.2019Background
- Plaintiff Jackie Sullivan sued 48 defendants for asbestos-related wrongful death; suit removed to federal court by Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (HIC).
- Alleged asbestos exposure occurred aboard the U.S.S. Blakely (built in Louisiana); no exposure relevant to HIC occurred in Pennsylvania.
- HIC is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Virginia; not "at home" in Pennsylvania.
- Plaintiff relied on Pennsylvania statutes (15 Pa.C.S. § 411 and 42 Pa.C.S. § 5301) that require foreign corporations to register to do business and state that registration "shall constitute a sufficient basis" for general personal jurisdiction.
- The central legal dispute: whether Pennsylvania’s registration scheme (which conditions the privilege of doing business on consent to general jurisdiction) survives the Supreme Court’s Daimler rule limiting general jurisdiction to fora where a corporation is "at home."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pennsylvania registration statutes validly confer general jurisdiction over HIC | Registration under §§411/5301 constitutes consent to general jurisdiction; HIC registered (or its predecessors did) | Daimler limits general jurisdiction to where a corporation is "at home," and HIC is not "at home" in PA | Court: Pa. statutory scheme is unconstitutional; cannot supply general jurisdiction over HIC |
| Whether statutory consent by registration is "knowing and voluntary" | Consent is knowing because §5301 explicitly states registration yields jurisdiction | Consent is involuntary because registration is mandatory to do business; coercive choice | Court: Even if knowing, consent is functionally involuntary and thus invalid under due process |
| Whether pre-Daimler Third Circuit precedent (Bane) remains binding | Bane supports that registration = consent to general jurisdiction | Daimler supersedes Bane’s contacts-based rationale | Court: Bane is irreconcilable with Daimler and no longer controlling for general jurisdiction |
| Whether any other basis for jurisdiction exists over HIC | Plaintiff did not assert specific jurisdiction or exceptional circumstances | HIC: no contacts with PA and not "at home" here | Court: No specific jurisdiction, no voluntary consent, no other exception; personal jurisdiction lacking; HIC dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (limits general jurisdiction to forums where corporation is "at home")
- Bane v. Netlink, Inc., 925 F.2d 637 (3d Cir. 1991) (pre-Daimler: registration in PA treated as consent to general jurisdiction)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts framework origin)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (distinguishes specific vs. general jurisdiction; defendant must be "at home" for general jurisdiction)
- Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 814 F.3d 619 (2d Cir.) (statutory registration does not implicitly confer general jurisdiction)
- Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123 (Del. 2016) (Delaware declined to treat registration as consenting to general jurisdiction post-Daimler)
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595 (unconstitutional conditions doctrine: government may not condition a benefit on surrender of constitutional rights)