The Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani New York Product Liability team, including Partner Max Trembitsky, Associate Kaitlyn Cunningham, and former Associate Mirza Hadzic, prevailed on a motion to dismiss on behalf of a manufacturer in a product liability action arising from injuries allegedly caused by a children’s chair sold in Indiana.
The plaintiffs alleged that a child was injured when she fell onto a children’s chair purchased at a retail store in New Haven, Indiana. They asserted that Indiana courts had specific personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer based on its participation in the nationwide stream of commerce and the eventual sale of its products to Indiana consumers.
GRSM moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the manufacturer lacked the minimum contacts with Indiana required by the Due Process Clause. Although the manufacturer produced millions of chairs for nationwide distribution, it had no presence in Indiana and did not control or direct the distribution or sale of its products there. It also did not specifically market to Indiana consumers, design the chair for an Indiana customer, or otherwise engage in conduct purposefully directed toward Indiana.
The plaintiffs relied on the manufacturer’s nationwide distribution network and evidence that thousands of chairs had previously been shipped to an Indiana distribution center. On reply, GRSM demonstrated that these facts established, at most, participation in a nationwide stream of commerce and did not constitute the additional forum-directed conduct, the requisite “something more,” necessary to establish purposeful availment of Indiana.
Following oral argument by Trembitsky, the court issued an 11-page order granting the motion in its entirety. The court held that the manufacturer’s contacts with Indiana were insufficient to support specific personal jurisdiction, emphasizing that the manufacturer did not direct its products to Indiana, participate in geographic distribution or sales decisions, or engage in Indiana-focused advertising or marketing. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on shipments to an Indiana distribution center, finding no evidence that the chair at issue was included in those shipments or that the manufacturer knew its chairs would ultimately be sold in Indiana.
Distinguishing cases involving additional conduct directed toward the forum state, the court concluded that manufacturing and nationwide distribution of a general-use product did not constitute the required “something more.” The court ultimately found the connection between the manufacturer, the chair, and Indiana to be merely “random, fortuitous, or attenuated” and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint against the manufacturer for lack of personal jurisdiction.
This successful result reflects the outstanding strategy, collaboration, and efforts of the entire New York Product Liability team, led by Partner Gregg Minkin, with significant contributions from Partner James Regan and valuable support from the firm’s Indianapolis office, particularly Partner Thomas Kus.