375 P.3d 1035
Wash.2016Background
- Washington sued >20 foreign CRT manufacturers alleging a global price‑fixing conspiracy that caused supracompetitive prices for CRT products sold to Washington consumers.
- Complaint alleges defendants dominated the global CRT market, placed CRTs into international streams of commerce with intent they be incorporated into millions of products sold in the U.S., including Washington, and intended the conspiracy’s effects to reach Washington.
- Several defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under CR 12(b)(2), submitting declarations that they did no business or sales in Washington; the State requested jurisdictional discovery.
- Trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and awarded fees to defendants; Court of Appeals reversed, finding prima facie minimum contacts and that jurisdiction was reasonable.
- Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals: on the pleadings the State made a prima facie showing of purposeful availment under stream‑of‑commerce principles and the exercise of jurisdiction was reasonable; remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Washington courts have specific personal jurisdiction over foreign CRT manufacturers | State: defendants placed CRTs into the stream of commerce with intent they be incorporated into products sold in large numbers in Washington, satisfying purposeful minimum contacts | Companies: mere placement into a global distribution stream or sales to independent distributors is insufficient; State must show forum‑targeting or other "plus" contacts; many defendants submitted declarations showing no Washington contacts | Held: On a prima facie pleading stage showing, allegations suffice to show purposeful minimum contacts and jurisdiction is not unreasonable; case remanded for further proceedings and discovery |
| Proper legal test for minimum contacts in this antitrust conspiracy (stream‑of‑commerce v. effects/Calder) | State: stream‑of‑commerce allegations (large volume, intent that CRTs reach U.S./Washington) support jurisdiction | Companies and dissent: this is an intentional tort (price‑fixing) implicating Calder/Walden effects test; plaintiff must show defendants expressly aimed conduct at Washington | Held: Majority analyzes under stream‑of‑commerce (concluding J. McIntyre does not foreclose jurisdiction where substantial sales/regular flow are alleged); dissent would apply Calder and would find jurisdiction lacking for most defendants |
| Effect of defendants’ affidavits submitted with 12(b)(2) motions | State: pleadings alone suffice at prima facie stage; discovery warranted before treating affidavits as dispositive | Defendants: affidavits defeat the complaint’s allegations; court may treat motion like summary judgment and consider declarations | Held: Majority treats the complaint allegations as sufficient at this stage and declines to treat declarations as defeating those allegations before jurisdictional discovery; dissent argues trial court properly considered declarations and should have dismissed most defendants |
| Reasonableness/fair play and substantial justice for subjecting foreign manufacturers to suit in Washington | State: Washington has a strong interest protecting its consumers; inconvenience to defendants does not outweigh that interest given alleged purposeful targeting | Companies: defending in Washington is burdensome and unfair absent stronger forum contacts | Held: Majority: reasonableness factors favor Washington; exercise of jurisdiction would not offend fair play and substantial justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (sets modern three‑part due‑process minimum contacts framework)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes minimum contacts and fair play standard)
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (stream‑of‑commerce foreseeability alone is insufficient for jurisdiction)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (fractured opinions on stream‑of‑commerce; O’Connor concurrence requires additional forum‑directed conduct)
- J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011) (fractured opinion; narrow holding endorsed requires ‘something more’ than a single or isolated sale through a national distributor)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (effects test for intentional torts: intentional act expressly aimed at forum causing harm principally felt there)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) (clarifies Calder: plaintiff’s forum connections alone do not establish defendant’s forum contacts)
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (explains how to treat fractured Supreme Court decisions when determining controlling rationale)