USA Law and Practice Contributed by: Trevor Keenan, Michelle Byers and Curtis Berglund, Campbell Conroy & O’Neil, P.C.
ruling opens up the potential for corporations to be sued in any state in which they conduct business. Specific jurisdiction Specific jurisdiction only allows a court to hear a particular case against a party. The US Supreme Court in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v Superior Court of California, 582 US 255 (2017) clarified the scope of specific jurisdiction. Specific juris - diction requires “an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State” (id at 264). Multi-plaintiff product actions with non-resident plaintiffs face jurisdic - tional hurdles when they are brought in courts of states where the defendant is not headquartered or incorporated and where the alleged incident did not occur. In 2021, the US Supreme Court further delin - eated where lawsuits can be filed under the doctrine of personal jurisdiction. The court held that plaintiffs could file suit against a defendant where the defendant had cultivated and served a market in a state, even if there was no direct link between the product causing the injury and the forum state (Ford Motor Company v Montana Eighth Judicial District Court et al, 592 US 351, 362 (2021)). Federal Court Jurisdiction Federal courts have “federal question” jurisdic - tion over cases arising under the US Constitution, federal laws or treaties (28 USC Section 1331). Federal courts also have “diversity jurisdiction” in cases where each plaintiff is from a different state or foreign country than each defendant and the amount in controversy exceeds USD75,000 (28 USC Section 1332 (d)). In diversity jurisdic - tion, the federal court where the suit is filed must have specific jurisdiction over at least one party.
If federal jurisdiction prerequisites are not met, claims must be brought in the state court that has jurisdiction. 2.5 Pre-Action Procedures and Requirements for Product Liability Claims In general, there are no pre-action requirements to bring a product liability claim. Many jurisdic - tions, however, require a party asserting a war - ranty claim to provide the opposing party rea - sonable notice of the breach of warranty upon discovering the breach (UCC Section 2-607). The notice requirement exists to provide the allegedly breaching party with an opportunity to cure the breach. The notice requirement is typically not a prerequisite for bringing a breach of warranty claim, but the failure to provide rea - sonable notice may be asserted as an affirma - tive defence to the claim. In some jurisdictions, the filing of the lawsuit is sufficient notice to the defendant. 2.6 Rules for Preservation of Evidence in Product Liability Claims Once an entity “reasonably anticipates” becom - ing party to a litigation or the target of a govern - mental investigation, it has a common law duty to preserve all potentially relevant documents and tangible things, including electronically stored information, that may be discoverable in that litigation or investigation. This duty extends to materials within a party’s possession, custody or control and materials it created, revised, sent, received or changed, and applies regardless of where the party has physi - cal custody of the materials. In product liability cases, parties may also be required to preserve tangible things such as the allegedly defective product.
309 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook