908 F. Supp. 2d 1224
N.D. Ala.2012Background
- Plaintiff sues Kongsberg Inc. in Alabama federal court seeking to challenge personal jurisdiction issues over a Canadian defendant.
- Plaintiff alleges a defect in a DPS system (installed in a Can-Am Spyder) caused a motorcycle accident in Alabama.
- Kongsberg designed, manufactured, and supplied the DPS system to BRP for Can-Am Spyders; BRP sold the vehicles in the United States, including Alabama.
- Kongsberg recalls the DPS system and ships replacement DPS units to U.S. dealers, including Alabama, after the accident.
- Kongsberg did not respond fully to a 10-year contacts request, providing information for 2006–2009 with evidence of fifteen shipments to Alabama unrelated to the Can-Am Spyder.
- The court analyzes whether personal jurisdiction over Kongsberg complies with Alabama’s long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kongsberg has sufficient minimum contacts with Alabama | Kongsberg had targetted Alabama via DPS sales; aware BRP marketed nationwide including Alabama; shipped to Alabama and assisted recalls. | Kongsberg had no input into BRP’s sales in Alabama and limited evidence of contacts; no continuous contact. | Yes; sufficient minimum contacts established |
| Whether the stream of commerce theory supports jurisdiction over Kongsberg | Product placed into stream of commerce with expectation of forum sale; foreseeability sufficient. | McIntyre dispute; cannot rely on mere foreseeability; requires more. | Stream of commerce principle supports jurisdiction |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice | Alabama has interest in adjudicating injuries from defective products; convenient for witnesses. | Burden on a Canadian company; disfavored by due process considerations. | Jurisdiction consistent with fair play and substantial justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc. v. Food Movers Int’l, Inc., 593 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2010) (prima facie jurisdiction burden shifting in 12(b)(2))
- United Technologies Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2009) (burden shifting when affidavits produced)
- Vermeulen v. Renault U.S.A., Inc., 975 F.2d 746 (11th Cir. 1992) (stream of commerce and related tests for jurisdiction)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (Supreme Court 1980) (foreseeability and forum contacts in due process)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court 1985) (fair play and substantial justice factors)
- Ex parte DBI, Inc., 23 So.3d 635 (Ala. 2009) (Alabama jurisdiction based on related product and distribution)
- Marbury v. Am. Truetzschler, Inc., 111 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (M.D. Ala. 2000) (plaintiff’s forum interests and adjudication efficiency)
- Morris v. SSE, Inc., 843 F.2d 489 (11th Cir. 1988) (minimum contacts and foreseeable forum in related contexts)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (Supreme Court 1987) (stream of commerce and purposeful availment considerations (plurality))
- McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (Supreme Court 2011) (fractured decision on stream of commerce analysis)