Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lemaire
395 P.3d 1116
Ariz. Ct. App.2017Background
- Buss (Arizona resident) sued Wal‑Mart (Delaware corp., principal place in Arkansas) in Arizona for a slip‑and‑fall that occurred in Oregon.
- Wal‑Mart moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; superior court denied, relying on Bohreer to find general jurisdiction based on Wal‑Mart’s Arizona presence.
- Wal‑Mart petitioned for special action; Arizona Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction because an appeal would not be an adequate remedy for an asserted lack of jurisdiction.
- The dispute turns solely on whether Arizona courts have general jurisdiction over Wal‑Mart (specific jurisdiction is lacking because the tort occurred in Oregon).
- Wal‑Mart argued (1) registration/agent appointment under A.R.S. §§10‑1501–1510 does not consent to general jurisdiction and (2) Wal‑Mart’s large Arizona presence does not render it “at home” here.
- The court concluded registration statutes do not effect consent to general jurisdiction and that Wal‑Mart’s extensive Arizona activities are not an “exceptional” basis to deem it at home in Arizona; therefore the action must be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether registering and appointing an agent in Arizona constitutes consent to general jurisdiction | Bohreer: registration/appointment implies consent; makes foreign corps subject to general jurisdiction | Registration statutes do not explicitly waive due process; no fair notice of consent; modern doctrine replaces implied‑consent rationale | Statute registration and agent appointment do not create general jurisdiction by express or implied consent |
| Whether Wal‑Mart is “at home” in Arizona so as to permit general jurisdiction | Wal‑Mart’s pervasive, economic presence (stores, employees, taxes) renders it essentially at home | Daimler/Goodyear require incorporation or principal place of business except in exceptional cases; Wal‑Mart’s Arizona contacts are not exceptional | Wal‑Mart is not “at home” in Arizona; its commercial scale alone is insufficient for general jurisdiction |
| Whether specific jurisdiction exists for an Oregon injury | (Implied) Buss argues Arizona is a convenient forum | Wal‑Mart notes the injury and related conduct occurred in Oregon | Specific jurisdiction lacking because the claim has no connection to Arizona |
| Remedy — dismissal or transfer | Buss would have forum convenience concerns if dismissed | Wal‑Mart sought dismissal for lack of jurisdiction | Court directed dismissal without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (U.S. 2011) (general jurisdiction exists where a corporation is “essentially at home” in the forum)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (limits general jurisdiction mainly to state of incorporation or principal place of business; other forums only in exceptional cases)
- Bohreer v. Erie Ins. Exchange, 216 Ariz. 208 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (Arizona case holding insurer statutes provided express consent to general jurisdiction)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (established minimum‑contacts standard underlying specific jurisdiction)
- Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1952) (recognized exceptional factual circumstances that can support general jurisdiction)