16 F. Supp. 3d 952
S.D. Ind.2014Background
- Bumbo manufactures the Bumbo Seat for infants.
- Plaintiffs received a second-hand seat in Georgia and moved to Indiana in 2009.
- Plaintiff child G.O. was injured in Indiana on January 1, 2010.
- Plaintiffs sued Bumbo, asserting damages from the injury.
- Bumbo has no Indiana offices or employees, is not registered there, and does not directly sell to Indiana end-users.
- Bumbo’s products are sold in Indiana through nationwide distributors and retailers; recalls were overseen with these retailers and Indiana residents raised complaints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bumbo has minimum contacts with Indiana | O’Neals: Bumbo knowingly distributes to Indiana via nationwide channels | Bumbo: no Indiana presence or direct sales; distribution is third-party | Yes, Bumbo purposefully avails itself of Indiana |
| Whether Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of Bumbo’s Indiana activities | Claims relate to the Bumbo Seat sold into Indiana via distributors | Claims would be the same regardless of Indiana availability | Yes, claims arise out of Indiana activities per uBID framework |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction offends traditional notions of fair play | Indiana has strong interest; burden on Bumbo is manageable | Not argued; facility in Indiana is minimal | No, jurisdiction would not offend due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennings v. AC Hydraulic A/S, 383 F.3d 546 (7th Cir. 2004) (specific jurisdiction tied to known stream-of-commerce contacts)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (state lines not irrelevant for jurisdiction; forewarns against mere fortuity)
- Dehmlow v. Austin Fireworks, 963 F.2d 941 (7th Cir. 1992) (stream-of-commerce context; distribution awareness applicable)
- Giotis v. Apollo of the Ozarks, Inc., 800 F.2d 660 (7th Cir. 1986) (head of distribution network; purposeful sale into forum state)
- uBID, Inc. v. GoDaddy Group, Inc., 623 F.3d 421 (7th Cir. 2010) (relates to relatedness and foreseeability under quid pro quo of forum use)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment and fair play considerations for personal jurisdiction)