Mary Ainsworth v. Cargotec USA, Incorporated
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9424
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Ms. Ainsworth filed a product liability and wrongful death action in the Southern District of Mississippi against Cargotec USA and Moffett Engineering for a fatal forklift incident.
- The forklift was designed/manufactured by Irish firm Moffett and sold in the United States by Cargotec under an exclusive US distribution agreement.
- Cargotec was Moffett’s sole US distributor; Moffett did not sell forklifts directly to US customers.
- The district court applied the stream-of-commerce approach to personal jurisdiction, finding Moffett’s Mississippi sales foreseeable and subject to suit there; the court denied dismissal.
- After McIntyre v. Nicastro, Moffett challenged the district court’s ruling, arguing McIntyre limits the stream-of-commerce theory; the district court denied reconsideration.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the stream-of-commerce approach remains valid under Justice Breyer’s narrow concurrence in McIntyre, given extensive sales in Mississippi and lack of any limiting conduct by Moffett.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may exercise specific jurisdiction over Moffett | Mississippi sales and distribution foreseeability establish minimum contacts | McIntyre narrows stream-of-commerce; no forum targeting | Affirmed jurisdiction; stream-of-commerce applicable |
| Whether McIntyre requires limiting the stream-of-commerce approach | Breyer concurrence supports existing framework given facts | McIntyre forecloses automatic stream-of-commerce reasoning | Not dispositive; narrow Breyer view controls here |
| Whether Mississippi’s exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process | Substantial US sales and no voluntary limitation | McIntyre confines when there is a single sale; here there are many | Due process satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011) (fractions of the Court; controlling narrow grounds for stream-of-commerce)
- AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp., 689 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (narrowest holding: McIntyre did not change framework)
- CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 481 U.S. 69 (1987) (general due-process framework for jurisdiction)
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (plurality reasoning on narrow grounds in fractured decisions)
- Bearry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 818 F.2d 370 (5th Cir. 1987) (minimum contacts in stream-of-commerce context)
- Luv N’ care, Ltd. v. Insta-Mix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting the stream-of-commerce standard)
- Latshaw v. Johnston, 167 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 1999) (minimum contacts analysis framework)