BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

  • work Practice Area

    Personal Injury and Med Mal

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Wednesday, June 22, 2022

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

$197.00
CLE
ALL

This CLE course will discuss the issue of personal jurisdiction over nonresident corporate defendants in light of the Supreme Court's unanimous decisions in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. and Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer. The program will discuss prior rulings by the Supreme Court on corporate jurisdiction, review issues that may have been resolved and issues that remain unresolved, and consider best practices for nonresident defendants.

Faculty

Jennifer Riley
Partner, Vice Chair Workplace Class Action Group
Duane Morris LLP.

Ms. Riley has defended companies faced with significant complex litigation matters for more than two decades. She regularly defends companies facing class actions, collective actions, pattern or practice lawsuits, and other types of representative proceedings, ranging in size from dozens to tens of thousands of claims. Ms. Riley has represented clients facing bet-the-company cases in a wide range of complex civil litigation matters in federal and state courts across the country. She also provides counsel to employers seeking to navigate thorny issues, including investigations, compliance, and terminations. Ms. Riley is a regular speaker, author, and presenter regarding class action issues, legal developments, and challenges that companies may face in the future. 

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Cary Stewart Sklaren
Partner
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP

Sklaren is a litigation strategist and tactician, litigation manager, and trial lawyer, with high profile products liability, asbestos, general tort, and commercial litigation experience. He has tried products liability, asbestos, general tort and commercial lawsuits, and has counseled the management of major American and international corporations on litigation and regulatory-related issues.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Aaron S. Weiss
Shareholder
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt LLP

Mr. Weiss maintains a national litigation practice focused on telecommunications law, class actions and consumer claims. He also frequently counsels insurance companies on complex coverage issues relating to class actions and other aggregated litigation. Mr. Weiss has particularly extensive experience in litigating matters under the TCPA. He has litigated dozens of TCPA cases on both a single plaintiff and class basis. His experience includes cases relating to conduct that occurred as early as 2005, and he has been involved in many precedent-setting Florida TCPA decisions.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. and Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer, 592 US __ (2021), were expected to clarify the test for specific jurisdiction. They did not. Instead, the Court held that specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant exists if the suit "arises out of" or "relates to" the defendant's forum activities, specifically stating that causation was not the controlling factor.

In the aftermath of the decision, both courts and practitioners have been trying to demarcate the limits of the in-forum conduct that is sufficiently "related to" a plaintiff's claims to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant for purposes of adjudicating plaintiff’s claims. In some cases, the test has expanded jurisdiction and in others contracted it.

Defendants have been advised to develop a record showing a lack of purposeful availment in a jurisdiction and to present affidavits to that effect. But proving a negative can be difficult, and businesses that sell, market, and distribute their products and services broadly across multiple states may find it difficult to refute jurisdiction.

Listen as our panel of litigators analyzes personal jurisdiction over corporate defendants after the Ford decisions.

Outline

  1. Introduction: historic principles and cases 2011-2021
  2. Analysis of Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. and Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer
  3. Applying the "related to" jurisdictional test

Benefits

The panel will review these and other important issues:

  • What are the implications of Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. and Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer for litigation proceedings in states where the defendant is not subject to general jurisdiction?
  • Does the Fifth Amendment similarly restrict personal jurisdiction by a federal court that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on state courts?
  • How will plaintiffs and defendants adjust their litigation strategies in response to the Ford decisions?
  • What about personal jurisdiction over out-of-state class members now that several circuit courts have weighed in on the issue?
  • Will "tag, you're served" still work after the Ford cases?
  • Do "relate to" and "arise out of" overlap, or is each a separate basis for specific jurisdiction?