Pennsylvania Supreme Court Puts An End To Consent By Registration Theory Of General Personal Jurisdiction

• Published date: 06 January 2022
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Husch Blackwell LLP
• Author: Ms Magda Patitsas and Jamie Steiner

On December 22, 2021, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a decision in Mallory v. Norfolk S. R.R. Co., Civ. A. No. 3 EAP 2021, Slip. Op. J-49-2021, at 33, 44 (Pa. Dec. 22, 2021) that is sure to become the pillar of jurisdictional challenges going forward. The Court unanimously held that general jurisdiction does not exist solely on the basis of a company's registration to do business in Pennsylvania. In so doing, the Commonwealth's highest court eviscerated plaintiffs' go-to opinion to the contrary, Webb-Benjamin LLC v. International Rug Group, LLC, 192 A.3d 1133 (Pa. Super. 2018), and emphasized that Pennsylvania's long-arm statute, 42 Pa. C.S. ' 5301(a)(2)(i), which provides that companies registering to do business in the Commonwealth consent to general jurisdiction, "clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution." Mallory, Slip. Op. J-49-2021, at 33. This welcomed clarification brings Pennsylvania's general jurisdiction jurisprudence in line with the United States Supreme Court's precedent and, hopefully, puts an end to litigation that does not belong in Pennsylvania against defendants who merely registered to do business there.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Mallory considered whether a corporate defendant who is not incorporated in Pennsylvania and whose principal place of business is outside of the Commonwealth may, nevertheless, be subject to general jurisdiction solely on the basis of its registration to do business in the Commonwealth. The plaintiff, a Virginia resident, filed an action in Pennsylvania against a Virginia corporation, alleging injuries sustained in Virginia and Ohio. Mallory, Slip. Op. J-49-2021, at 9. The trial court granted defendant's preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint with prejudice reasoning that it would violate Due Process to construe a foreign corporation's compliance with Pennsylvania's mandatory business registration statute as a voluntary consent to Pennsylvania courts' exercise of general personal jurisdiction. Mallory, Slip. Op. J-49-2021, at 13. The trial court further observed that, "[b]y requiring foreign corporations to submit to general jurisdiction as a condition of doing business here, Pennsylvania's statutory scheme infringes upon our sister state's ability to try cases against their corporate citizens." Mallory, Slip. Op. J-49-2021, at 15.

On direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, plaintiff argued that registration to do business in the Commonwealth establishes...