Shook v. Wilson, 572 P.3d 993

Plaintiffs, all New Mexico residents, sued Philip Morris USA, three nonresident law firms (Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP; Covington & Burling LLP; and Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP), and others, alleging a conspiracy to mislead the public about the dangers of smoking.
The law firms are based outside New Mexico and have no significant New Mexico contacts; plaintiffs concede there is no general jurisdiction and rely instead on the theory of conspiracy jurisdiction for specific jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs allege the law firms, as part of a 'Committee of Counsel,' orchestrated nationwide misrepresentations and included acts targeting New Mexico, but provide no direct evidence linking the firms’ actions to New Mexico.
The district court denied the law firms’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, relying on conspiracy jurisdiction per Santa Fe Technologies v. Argus Networks, Inc., and declined to allow an interlocutory appeal.
The law firms petitioned the New Mexico Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition, arguing that conspiracy jurisdiction is unconstitutional or inapplicable under the facts presented.
The Supreme Court consolidated the petitions, held oral arguments, and issued an extraordinary writ, finding insufficient grounds for personal jurisdiction over the law firms.

Issue	Plaintiffs' Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Constitutionality of Conspiracy Jurisdiction	Conspiracy jurisdiction is valid if a defendant joins a conspiracy targeting NM	It violates due process by attributing others’ contacts to the defendant	Upheld as constitutional if limited to knowing participation targeting NM
Minimum Contacts Showing	Law firms joined a conspiracy with known acts impacting NM	No evidence law firms knew of or directed any acts targeting NM	Plaintiffs failed to show law firms had minimum contacts with NM
Sufficiency of Evidence for Prima Facie Case	Exhibits and broad allegations establish participation and knowledge	Allegations are too general; exhibits lack specific ties to NM or law firms	Plaintiffs’ evidence is insufficient for prima facie jurisdiction
Appropriateness of Writ of Prohibition	Necessary to prevent improper assertion of jurisdiction over law firms	District court overstepped; no other adequate remedy	Writ granted, law firms must be dismissed

Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (established minimum contacts standard for personal jurisdiction)
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (intentional tortfeasor may be subject to jurisdiction where their conduct is expressly aimed at the forum state)
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (it is the defendant, not third parties, who must create contacts with the forum state)
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct., 582 U.S. 255 (2017) (specific jurisdiction only extends to claims connected to the defendant’s forum contacts)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and fairness analysis in the context of personal jurisdiction)
Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958) (purposeful availment requirement for personal jurisdiction)
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (foreseeability alone is insufficient for personal jurisdiction)