Morris v. Lumber Liquidators, 6:16-cv-00093

Background

Plaintiffs Heather and Colton Morris (Montana residents) purchased laminate flooring from Lumber Liquidators, Inc. (LLI), a Delaware corporation with principal place of business in Virginia. The product was shipped directly to the Morrises' Montana home.
After installation, the Morrises alleged their children suffered headaches and breathing problems and that testing showed elevated formaldehyde; they complained to LLI.
LLI sent a formaldehyde test kit to the Morrises and communicated test results by email stating levels fell within WHO guidelines and that the floor did not appear to contribute significantly.
LLI moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the court previously held Montana’s long‑arm statute applied and proceeded to the due process (minimum contacts) inquiry.
Key factual dispute addressed at hearing: whether the flooring was ordered online and shipped directly by LLI to the Morrises (billing/recipient listed a third party), with plaintiffs introducing a bill of lading and LLI’s test‑result email.
The court found LLI shipped product and communicated directly with Montana customers, then denied LLI’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Montana has specific personal jurisdiction over LLI	LLI knowingly shipped product into Montana and communicated with plaintiffs, so it purposefully availed itself of Montana law	Jurisdiction improper because defendant is out‑of‑state and product could have arrived fortuitously; lack of purposeful interjection	Held: Specific jurisdiction exists — direct shipment and communications support purposeful availment
Whether shipment to Montana was mere stream‑of‑commerce or purposeful targeting	Shipment was direct to Montana (not through an intermediary); thus not fortuitous	Relies on stream‑of‑commerce cases to argue lack of purposeful direction	Held: Direct shipment (not via intermediary) supports purposeful availment; defendant could reasonably anticipate suit in Montana
Whether plaintiffs’ claims arise out of defendant’s forum contacts	Plaintiffs’ injuries allegedly caused by the product LLI shipped to Montana	Defendant implies lack of nexus if shipment was not targeted	Held: Nexus satisfied — the claim arises from the product shipment to Montana
Whether exercising jurisdiction is reasonable under due process	Montana has strong interest and plaintiffs would be inconvenienced by dismissal; defendant bears no compelling burden shown	Defendant points to MDL consolidation and convenience concerns, arguing unreasonableness	Held: Exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable; defendant did not overcome presumption of reasonableness

Key Cases Cited

Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes minimum contacts standard for due process)
World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (mere unilateral activity by plaintiff moving product does not confer jurisdiction)
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (plurality discussing stream‑of‑commerce and “something more” for purposeful availment)
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (plurality on need for conduct purposefully directed at the forum)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (single act can support jurisdiction where substantial connection exists)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (distinguishes general vs. specific jurisdiction; ‘‘essentially at home’’ standard)
McGee v. Int'l Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220 (recognizes that single act can support jurisdiction)
B.T. Metal Work v. United Die & Mfg. Co., 323 Mont. 308 (Montana case finding jurisdiction where defendant knowingly shipped products into Montana on multiple occasions)