Un)specific Personal Jurisdiction

New York's long-arm statute and constitutional due-process considerations together limit a New York court's power render a valid judgment against — exercise so-called over—an out-of-state product manufacturer. Supreme Court cases teach that due-process considerations permit court exercise personal jurisdiction over manufacturer in two ways: First, court may exercise general personal where manufacturer is essentially at home in New York, and second, it may exercise personal where the suit . . . aris[es] out of or relat[es] defendant's contacts New York. Compared with question whether manufacturer is essentially at home— determining, in most cases, whether manufacturer is incorporated or maintains a principal place of business — in New York, challenges become clear. A plaintiff (or their counsel) can virtually always develop an argument permit a court infer that their claims relate to manufacturer's contacts with New York. A majority of manufacturers nowadays will have some contact with New York, whether it's a nationwide marketing campaign directed at consumers in New York, an online website accessible from New York, or a nationwide distribution system through which their product ultimately finds its way into New York. Whatever contact, it alone is irrelevant, as dispositive question is whether plaintiff's claims relate to manufacturer's contact — marketing campaign, online website, or distribution system — with New York. The Court of Appeals' most recent opinion on topic should provide some comfort manufacturer defending product-liability claims in New York court: It held that an Ohio retailer who sold a product a third party who later resold product a New York resident did not purposefully direct its products at New York residents, regardless of whether Ohio retailer knew third party intended resell product. Two companion product-liability cases, pending before Court and involving a Ford Motor Co. car design, assembled, and first sold out of state, have potential change all this. Many years after Ford first sold them, cars were at center of serious accidents, seriously injuring one and leaving another dead. Facing product-liability claims in state court, Ford moved dismiss claims, arguing courts could not exercise personal jurisdiction over Ford because had done nothing in states give rise claims. The courts disagreed, appellate courts did too, and Court granted certiorari. The Court should cease opportunity provide much-needed clarity courts across country (including in New York) and hold that a court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state manufacturer where its contact with state caused plaintiff's claims. Doing so will end prolonged inconsistency in this area of law.