Boring Supreme Court Decision On Jurisdiction Has Real Consequences For Litigants

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal
• Law Firm: Reavis Page Jump
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Author: Mr Mark H. Moore
• Published date: 19 July 2023

The Supreme Court is on a tear, ignoring precedent and settled legal principles with seeming abandon. However, in its recent, less controversial decision, Mallory v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., No. 21-1168, 2023 WL 4187749 (U.S. June 27, 2023), the Court affirmed century-old precedent and held that a corporation would have to defend a lawsuit in the State of Pennsylvania based on a Pennsylvania statute requiring out-of-state corporations to consent to personal jurisdiction as a condition of registering to do business and that this exercise of jurisdiction did not violate the Due Process Clause. Although this decision will not blaze across editorial pages, it is of substantial importance to litigants.

The employee, plaintiff Robert Mallory, worked for Norfolk Southern as a freight-car mechanic for nearly twenty years, first in Ohio, then in Virginia. After he left the company, Mallory moved to Pennsylvania for a period before returning to Virginia. At some point he was diagnosed with cancer. Because he attributed his illness to his work at Norfolk Southern, Mallory sued his former employer under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, a federal workers' compensation statute. Mallory filed his lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court.

Norfolk Southern'a company incorporated in Virginia and headquartered there'moved to dismiss the suit on the basis that a Pennsylvania court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over it would offend the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Norfolk Southern noted that when the complaint was filed, Mr. Mallory resided in Virginia, and the complaint alleged that Mr. Mallory was exposed to carcinogens only in Ohio and Virginia. Mr. Mallory in turn relied upon Norfolk Sothern's presence in Pennsylvania, noting that Norfolk Southern manages over 2,000 miles of track, operates eleven rail yards, and runs three locomotive repair shops in the state. Norfolk Southern had registered to do business in Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania requires out-of-state companies that register to do business in the Commonwealth to agree to appear in its courts on "any cause of action" against them. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court sided with Norfolk Southern, citing the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment. In Judge Gorsuch's decision (which was 5-4 as to the sections concurred in by Justice Alito), the Court held that the dispute is controlled by Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of...