Peter M. Durney and Christopher J. Hurst Help Secure Dismissal of Product Liability Claims Against German Manufacturer for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in New Hampshire Federal Court

Smith Duggan Cornell & Gollub partners Peter M. Durney and Christopher J. Hurst, working together with Arndt von Waldow and Patricia Antezana of Reed Smith LLP. obtained a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction in New Hampshire federal court for a German manufacturer of a shot blast machine.

The decision, Laundry v. Peddinghaus Corp. et al., 1:22-cv-00185-AJ (D.N.H. July 24, 2024), granting the motion to dismiss is significant because it demonstrates that the “relatedness” prong of the specific personal jurisdiction analysis still has teeth in the aftermath of the most recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on specific jurisdiction, Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District, 592 U.S. 351 (2021).  In Ford, the majority held that some relationships would support jurisdiction without a causal showing, but “that does not mean anything goes,” and that “the phrase ‘relate to’ incorporates real limits.”  The majority’s opinion has been criticized as providing “no meaningful guidance” to the lower courts.  (J. Alito, concurrence).  Considering this lingering uncertainty, the Laundry decision provides an instructive example to the defense bar of a trial court applying Ford and concluding that the “real limits” of due process had been reached.   

The German client sold the subject machine to an Illinois based customer, which took delivery and possession of the machine in Poland.  When the German client sold the machine to its customer, it had no knowledge that the machine would end up in New Hampshire.  The customer transported the machine to New Hampshire and installed it at the plaintiff’s employer’s worksite, incorporating its own components and roller systems into the machine.  At the Illinois company’s request, the German client sent a technician to the New Hampshire worksite for a short period of time to provide support during the installation.   The German client also remotely connected to the machine from Germany on a couple of occasions in response to service requests from the Illinois customer.  The plaintiff was injured while working on the machine several years later.

The plaintiff argued that the presence of the employee in the forum over several days to assist with the installation of the machine satisfied the relatedness prong, but the court rejected that argument because there was no connection between that contact and plaintiff’s particular claims, which alleged that the machine was defective in design, not that his injuries were caused by negligent installation.  The court also concluded that plaintiff’s claims were not in any way related to the two instances of remote troubleshooting.  

The court also ruled that plaintiff had not satisfied the purposeful availment prong of the jurisdictional analysis because “isolated, post-sale, forum contacts” at the direction of a third-party were not sufficient.