holding that the interests of the forum were slight where (1) the only remaining claim had no connection to the forum, (2) the plaintiff was not a resident of the forum, (3) the plaintiff had not demonstrated that it was more convenient for it to litigate its claim against the alien defendant in California rather than Taiwan, the plaintiff’s home forum, and (4) while California did have an interest in “protecting its consumers by ensuring that foreign manufacturers comply with the state’s safety standards,” the dispute was not primarily about safety standards, but rather indemnification
How later courts described this case
- holding that the interests of the forum were slight where (1) the only remaining claim had no connection to the forum, (2) the plaintiff was not a resident of the forum, (3) the plaintiff had not demonstrated that it was more convenient for it to litigate its claim against the alien defendant in California rather than Taiwan, the plaintiff’s home forum, and (4) while California did have an interest in “protecting its consumers by ensuring that foreign manufacturers comply with the state’s safety standards,” the dispute was not primarily about safety standards, but rather indemnification
- holding that the “substantial connection” between a defendant and the forum, necessary for a finding of minimum contacts, must derive from an action purposefully directed toward the forum state and that “a defendant's awareness that the stream of commerce may or will sweep the product into the forum State does not convert the mere act of placing the product into the stream into an act purposefully directed toward the forum State.”
- explaining “[j]urisdiction is proper . . . where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a substantial connection with the forum state” and that the minimum contacts “must have a basis in ‘some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State’” (second emphasis added) (quoting Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 475 )
- explaining that “something more” is required than simply placing a product into the stream of commerce — e.g., “designing the product for the market in the forum State, advertising in the forum State, establishing channels for providing regular advice to customers in the forum State, or marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum State”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, 894 F. Supp. 2d 819 (2012)
However, Asahi is distinguishable.
Distinguished by Russell v. SNFA, 358 Ill. Dec. 273 (2011)
¶ 42 The facts of Asahi are distinguishable from the facts at bar, as the Asahi Court itself recognized.
The opinion
Justice Stevens,
with whom Justice White and Justice Blackmun join, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of California should be reversed for the reasons stated in Part II-B of the Court’s opinion. While I join Parts I and II-B, I do not join Part II-A for two reasons. First, it is not necessary to the Court’s decision. An examination of minimum contacts is not always necessary to determine whether a state court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction is constitutional. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U. S. 462, 476-478 (1985). Part II-B establishes, after considering the factors set forth in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S. 286, 292 (1980), that California’s exercise of jurisdiction over Asahi in this case would be “unreasonable and unfair.” Ante, at 116. This finding alone requires reversal; this case fits within the rule that “minimum requirements , inherent in the concept of ‘fair play and substantial justice’ may defeat *122 the reasonableness of jurisdiction even if the defendant has purposefully engaged in forum activities. ” Burger King, 471 U. S., at 477 -478 (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 320 (1945)). Accordingly, I see no reason in this case for the plurality to articulate “purposeful direction” or any other test as the nexus between an act of a defendant and the forum State that is necessary to establish minimum contacts.
Second, even assuming that the test ought to be formulated here, Part II-A misapplies it to the facts of this case. The plurality seems to assume that an unwavering line can be drawn between “mere awareness” that a component will find its way into the forum State and “purposeful availment” of the forum’s market. Ante, at 112. Over the course of its dealings with Cheng Shin, Asahi has arguably engaged in a higher quantum of conduct than “[t]he placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without more . . . .” Ibid. Whether or not this conduct rises to the level of purposeful availment requires a constitutional determination that is affected by the volume, the value, and the hazardous character of the components. In most circumstances I would be inclined to conclude that a regular course of dealing that results in deliveries of over 100,000 units annually over a period of several years would constitute “purposeful availment” even though the item delivered to the forum State was a standard product marketed throughout the world.