Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, et al.

There need not be a causal relationship between a defendant’s conduct in a forum and a claim to establish specific personal jurisdiction.

Petitioner was sued in Respondent’s state courts by residents of those states, stating claims arising from automobile accidents occurring therein. Petitioner argued they were not subject to personal jurisdiction in Respondent’s state courts because they did not design or manufacture the vehicles at issue within those states, nor did they sell the vehicles at issue there. Petitioner appealed the rulings, which held they were subject to specific personal jurisdiction, to the United States Supreme Court. The Court affirmed the holding that there need not be a causal relationship between a defendant’s conduct in a forum and a claim to establish specific personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reasoned that the two principles underlying personal jurisdiction, fairness to defendants and protection of interstate federalism, are not violated. Since the company can reasonably expect to be haled into court, benefits from the laws, and purposely availed itself of the forum, regular and extensive contacts are created. The Court has long focused on the nature and extent of “the defendant’s relationship to the forum State.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty., 582 U. S. Thus, while a causal connection is not required, a defendant's contacts with a forum must be relevant to a claim. AFFIRMED.